Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords]

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords]

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords](By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Margarine

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he will inquire into the new process of producing margarine with similar characteristics as butter by using the same fats and oils used in making the conventional margarine, details of which have been sent him.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I have made inquiries and I understand that leading United Kingdom margarine manufacturers are well acquainted with this process.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the fact that the Minister has said that butter is likely to become a luxury, will he do all he can to encourage the process in this country?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, I most certainly will. This has also been very closely examined by the manufacturers in this country and I am told that there are certain characteristics which make it not too palatable to British tastes, but they are following up the matter very closely.

Fish (Processing)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of fish landed at British ports this year has been sent to the glue works or turned into fish manure.

Major Lloyd George: I have no information about the specific quantities of fish used for conversion into glue or fish manure. Some 14,000 tons of unsold and condemned white fish were processed into animal feedingstuffs in the period January to the end of May this year out of total landings of approximately 320,000 tons; also some 13,000 tons of surplus herring were converted into oil and meal in the same period.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not well known that big quantities of fish that are brought into the ports do not get to the housewives? In view of the ineffectiveness of the White Fish Authority in this respect, what are the Government doing to see that more fish goes to the housewives at a cheaper rate, that the middlemen make profits less easily and that fishing grounds are not over-fished for the obtaining of fish meal and manure?

Major Lloyd George: The proportions are not very high. The total is just over 4 per cent., and I am informed that a lot of that fish was soft-roed cod, which is not easily frozen and is not very popular. Taking the average quantity, the proportion is very much lower than that figure. In some months there is very hot weather and the figure is very much higher.

Air Commodore Harvey: This is the third consecutive year in which large quantities of fish have had to be used for manure. Will the Minister take into account the fact that considerable foreign landings are still coming into Britain, that


this process is still going on? When is the White Fish Authority going to show something for their year's work?

Flour Improvers

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Food when he expects that the agene process will be abandoned, and that all flour will be treated by some other form of improver.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 31st March to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).

Dr. Broughton: Is the Minister aware that it was stated in this House on 19th June, 1950, that it would take about two years and would cost approximately 337,000 dollars to import from the U.S.A. the necessary machinery and chlorine dioxide to complete the change-over to an alternative and a safer process for treating flour? As the period of two years expires this week, may we have an assurance from the Minister that he is pursuing vigorously that desirable policy which was initiated under a Labour Government?

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member would refer to the answer which I gave in March last, he would see that it was to the effect that there was no unanimity as to the best alternative and that this matter has been very closely examined by the experts concerned. I said that in view of the complexity of the investigations and the amount of work involved, we could not possibly expect an answer before the end of this year.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider giving the public an opportunity of having pure flour for a change instead of all this rubbish of one kind and another?

Major Lloyd George: The public can have a loaf of that sort now if they want it, but the fact is, whether we like it or not, that they prefer the other.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the 85 per cent. loaf is what really saved this country during the war, and why has the Minister allowed the millers to drift back to a policy of poisoning the nation?

Major Lloyd George: I think that as a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman might ask my predecessor why he did the same thing.

Food Poisoning

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Food what action he is taking to lessen the incidence of food poisoning.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) on 17th March.

Dr. Broughton: Will the Minister inform the Prime Minister that many hon. Members would welcome legislation to supplement the Food and Drugs Act? Is he aware that there is a keen desire that our food should be wholesome and clean, and could not the Government do something useful?

Major Lloyd George: I would say this to the hon. Gentleman. I am totally in agreement with him about the need for this legislation as soon as possible and, when we get the time, I am hopeful that we shall be able to bring it forward. While I think it necessary that we should do that as soon as possible, I would point out that in the long run education is the only real solution.

Milk

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food, in view of a threatened shortage of milk, what decisions he has come to following the discussions between his Department and the dairymen on meet ing difficulties of distribution.

Major Lloyd George: There is always the possibility of some shortage of milk in the autumn but, on present estimates, I do not expect that it would be more than temporary. The discussions which have taken place will be of assistance to my Department in making arrangements to ensure that supplies are distributed as evenly as possible.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a spokesman for the National Dairymen's Association said recently that there is likely to be a severe shortage? Is that an overstatement? And if there is to be a shortage, can we take it that this year steps have already been taken so that there will not be the trouble we had, for instance, last year?

Major Lloyd George: It is difficult for me, or anyone else for that matter, to say what the degree of shortage will be, but.


from all the advice I can get, I do not think the shortage will be anything of a serious nature. One cannot possibly say what the shortage will be, but this sort of thing does happen in the autumn and occurred, not only last year, but before the war.

Mr. Dodds: But if there is a shortage, whether it is serious or not, are steps being taken to see that supplies are distributed adequately?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, definitely. Steps are taken to see that the supplies are distributed fairly. That has always been in mind, because difficulties of this kind do occur.

Mr. Manuel: Can the Minister inform the House what implementation there is in connection with the shortage so far as the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the slaughter policy in Scotland is concerned?

Major Lloyd George: I am not clear that I follow the hon. Gentleman's question.

Dr. Stross: Will the Minister bear in mind the very close association between liquid milk and cheese, for the one is made from the other, a quart of milk being equivalent to 4 oz. of cheese; and that if we cannot have much of the latter, will something specific be done to see that liquid milk is in good supply?

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Food what action he is taking to implement the provisions contained in the Milk (Special Designations) Act, 1949, to protect the public against bovine tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases.

Major Lloyd George: The Milk (Special Designations) Act, 1949, is operative in Scotland. In England and Wales the appropriate statute is the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950. Under these two Acts Orders have been made specifying six of the largest urban areas. Fourteen other major areas have already been surveyed for specification and 12 further areas are now being surveyed.

Dr. Broughton: Is the Minister aware that when the Bill was discussed in Parliament it was understood that, because of the shortage of bottling plant, the Act could not be brought fully into operation before 1st October, 1954? Might I ask

whether the necessary bottling plant is being manufactured at a rate which will ensure the Act being fully operative on the appointed day?

Major Lloyd George: I should like to look into that point further but, as far as I am informed, the necessary plant is being manufactured.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food to what extent adequate supplies of fresh milk will be available during the winter months of this year.

Major Lloyd George: Supplies of fresh milk should be sufficient to meet the demand for liquid consumption throughout the winter months, leaving a balance for manufacturing purposes.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the grave doubts expressed by responsible persons in the milk trade about winter supplies of milk, will the Minister make it clear that he is prepared to ration milk supplies this winter if it becomes necessary?

Major Lloyd George: I hope my answer will ease the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what factors have contributed to the current fall in the consumption of fresh milk.

Major Lloyd George: Liquid milk consumption in the four weeks ended 31st May was 120.4 million gallons, less than 2 per cent. below consumption in the same period last year. This change is too insignificant to be attriutable to any particular factors.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the latest published figures show a fall of about one million gallons in the consumption of full price fresh milk, and that this is rather a disturbing matter?

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the representations made to him by the trade expressing concern about the decline in milk consumption by people in the lower income groups, he will review his intention further to increase the retail price of milk.

Major Lloyd George: I have received no such representations from the milk distributive trade.

Mr. Williams: Is not the Minister aware that representations have at least been sent to Lord Woolton who promised that the matter would be looked into? Is this another example of co-ordination?

Major Lloyd George: I do not know about that; I answered the Question on the Paper. I do not know about the communications, but that does not alter the answer that there is no significant change.

Tinned Foods

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now re-introduce the points rationing scheme for tinned foodstuffs, the importation of which has been cut.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) and Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams) on 21st November, 1951.

Mr. Jeger: But I understand that reply was in the negative. Is not the Minister aware that in a number of shops today there are notices on tinned goods saying, "Buy now, you will need them later," and that that puts people with spare money in a very favourable position? Will he do something to implement the policy of fair shares of scarce commodities?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the trade has much more experience now in distributing scarce commodities than in the past. If I may say so—and I am glad of the chance to say so—the trade has done that with fairness when they have had the responsibility for doing so. Let us be fair about that. So far as the points rationing scheme is concerned, at the present time I see no justification for it, particularly in view of the extra staff involved, not only by my Department but by the trade itself.

Mr. Jeger: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order?

Mr. Jeger: No, Sir, I wish to put a further supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Member had asked his supplementary question.

Mr. Jeger: I was going to ask the Minister again whether he will do anything to anticipate a shortage in these goods in the near future when the existing stocks get very low? I would agree with him that the trade has done nothing unfair in this distribution up to now.

Eggs

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food what further steps he proposes to take to prevent a black market in eggs, in view of the fact that housewives who can only deal in shops receive on an average only two eggs a week.

Major Lloyd George: My enforcement officers are doing all they can to bring home to egg producers their public duties under the law.

Mr. Janner: Yes, but is the Minister aware that traders are getting cases of eggs and paying £10 a case more than the controlled price? Is he aware that there are some three million more laying hens this year than last year, and is he going to put a stop to the great black market that is going on?

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is one of the most difficult problems of all. I would remind him that about one-fifth of the egg producers of this country are people owning 25 hens or less, and they can sell freely without restriction— [Interruption.] I am pointing out the difficulty. About 45 per cent. of the eggs go to the packing stations. I am not suggesting that this scheme is perfect, but when I tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of egg producers—I do not mean the hens; I am talking about the owners —are about 350,000, he will realise that this is a problem.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the way to do away with this black market is to allow a free market? Only then will the consumers in this country know the real value of the eggs.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country egg retailers are selling their own registered customers as many eggs as they want, and that there seems to be something radically wrong with the distribution of the eggs legally on the market?

Miss Barton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that home-produced eggs increased by 450 million last year, but that none of these reached the public through his Department's grading scheme; and, as millions of eggs are disappearing before they reach the official stock records, what further action he proposes to take to break this black market.

Major Lloyd George: My information is that several hundred million fewer eggs were produced at home last year than in 1950. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that the number of hens in this country last year increased by three million, and that the estimated minimum number of eggs which they produced was 450 million? May I also ask him whether, in the answer to the Question to which he has referred, he himself said that 55 per cent. of the eggs produced in this country did not reach the scheme, and would he do something about the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Lady has gone a little bit wrong in her arithmetic. I mentioned that those who had 25 hens or less were free to sell what they liked. When the hon. Lady states that the number of home-produced eggs increased by 450 million, I must tell her that, in fact, they decreased by 720 million.

Mr. Follick: As there is definitely a great shortage of eggs in this country, is not the Minister aware that very large quantities of eggs and meat are going from Eire to Spain, and could he not make it attractive for that meat and those eggs to come to this country, instead of going to Spain?

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. They are going to Italy, not Spain, and not a great number, either. I am bound to say that, so far as Eire is concerned, we have a very good arrangement with them and that they stick to it religiously, and it has operated very well.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, in the very order of things, eggs are a volatile

product, and that, until he sets the British hens free and gets rid of the system of nationalisation, the consumer will never get any eggs?

Fish Transport Rates

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Food whether the White Fish Authority has yet completed its scheme in respect of equalisation of transport rates for fish; and what advice was given the Authority by its advisory council.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) on 22nd May.

Mr. Evans: Does that include a reply to the second part of my Question? I ask what advice was given to the Minister by the Advisory Council. Is the Minister aware that this proposal is wholly unacceptable to a great number of fishing interests in the country, and that my information is that the advice tendered by the Advisory Council was not to impose the transport rates as suggested?

Major Lloyd George: I get advice from the White Fish Authority. The position at the moment is that the White Fish Authority have asked the railways and Road Haulage Executive to give certain information—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] The railways and Road Haulage Executive have been asked to undertake a comprehensive review, and this is what they are now doing.

Mr. Evans: On a point of order. Owing to the discourteous behaviour of certain Members of the Government Front Bench, it was impossible to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Speaker: I heard it.

Farm Workers' Allowances

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if the seasonal allowances of tea, sugar, cheese and bacon made to farms workers, during the periods when they are working extra long hours, are being maintained at the same rates as last year; and if he has been able to agree a method of issuing these seasonal allowances direct to farm workers.

Major Lloyd George: No change has; been made in the allowances. There have been consultations about the possibility of changing the method of issue


and I am now considering the matter but, as my hon. Friend knows, there are great difficulties.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the regulations regarding the issue of these rations fall particularly heavily on those employers who sometimes employ many hundreds of men for strawberry picking, and so on, and will he treat the matter as one of extreme urgency?

Major Lloyd George: All these factors have been taken into consideration. The matter is being carefully examined now, but there are great difficulties involved.

Cereals (Commonwealth Production)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that he will buy all the wheat which can be obtained from Commonwealth countries.

Major Lloyd George: We cannot, for balance of payments and operational reasons, buy our wheat exclusively from Commonwealth countries. But we shall certainly continue to buy a very large proportion of our total requirements from these countries.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that in the first four months of this year we spent nearly £20 million on wheat from foreign countries, including the United States? Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say what steps are being taken to obtain more from sterling area Commonwealth countries?

Major Lloyd George: We hope very much that some of our Commonwealth producers will be able to increase their acreage. Indeed, that is their ambition, as has been indicated. I hope very much that it will come about.

Mr. Stokes: What does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to do to make it possible for some of the Commonwealth countries in the sterling area to increase their production? At present the Government are running a restrictive policy.

Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman may not have seen that one of the areas to which he refers has declared a five-year plan under which a very large increase in wheat acreage is proposed.

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Food if he will consult the Governments of Commonwealth countries with a view to expanding the growing of maize.

Major Lloyd George: The need for growing more maize and other cereals in the sterling area is already well recognised by all the Governments concerned. A Commonwealth Working Party was set up after the meeting of the Finance Ministers early this year to consider what could be done to increase cereals production, along with other food, feedingstuffs and raw materials. This body has not yet completed its work.

New Zealand Meat

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Food what policy he has adopted in buying lamb from New Zealand.

Major Lloyd George: Under an agreement signed on 14th February, 1952, we have undertaken to buy the exportable surplus of New Zealand meat, including lamb, or to permit its sale in the United Kingdom without restriction of quantity, for a period of 15 years.

Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is some confusion in New Zealand caused by the fact that his Department pays a premium for light-weight lambs, yet he is asking them to produce as much meat as possible? Can he make the policy clear?

Major Lloyd George: That point is under discussion at the moment with the New Zealand Government.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does this not show how valuable is bulk purchase?

Potatoes (Fish Fryers, Wales)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Food what loss his Department incurs in sending English potatoes to Wales for tockfeed; and why he does not sell them to South Wales fish fryers who would prefer to use them instead of Irish potatoes and would pay full controlled price for them.

Major Lloyd George: About £9 per ton, including overheads. Most of these potatoes are sub-standard or in danger of early deterioration and unsuitable for use by fish fryers.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister know that fish fryers in South Wales are ready to pay an additional price to him in order to get hold of these potatoes, which are not unsuitable for public use, and that that would be able to lessen the loss to his Department?

Major Lloyd George: I have explained fully to the hon. Gentleman in a letter which I sent him the other day the difficulties involved. Under the guarantee in the 1947 Act we have to dispose of potatoes, especially from Northern Ireland. It is because of the heavy crop there this year that certain restrictions on the movement of English potatoes have been imposed. I do not think that this is such a hardship as all that, because only one-third of the potatoes consumed in South Wales come from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister has written two letters on this subject. Is it not the position that the Northern Ireland potatoes, while very useful for some things, are not useful for frying? Why should they be concentrated in South Wales? Why should not the fish fryers of South Wales be able to get a fair share of potatoes from other parts of the country for which they are prepared to pay additional money?

Major Lloyd George: I agree that the hon. Gentleman has had two letters from me. The second one was necessary because obviously he did not understand the first. There is no restriction on South Wales fish fryers buying potatoes from outside the restricted area in Britain. The restricted area could not be avoided because of the difficulties which arise this season in Northern Ireland. In any case, South Wales and the South-West of England are the traditional market for Northern Ireland potatoes.

Slaughtering Facilities, Kent

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Food what representations he has received on the subject of slaughter facilities in the county of Kent; and, in view of the dislocation of the service caused by foot-and-mouth standstill orders, what action he is proposing to take to deal with the situation.

Major Lloyd George: Representations have been made to me on this matter by

the National Farmers' Union. To meet the situation we have temporarily reopened as many small slaughterhouses as possible, but whatever we do we cannot ensure that during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease the purchase and slaughter of stock shall proceed as smoothly as usual.

Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, during recent weeks, conditions have really been akin to chaos in many areas of Kent and that it has been represented that the reactions of his Ministry to the many representations that have been made on the subject have not been as swift or helpful as they might have been? Will he see that there is an investigation into the conditions on the spot?

Major Lloyd George: While I very much appreciate the difficulties which farmers in this area are undergoing at present, I do not think that my hon. Friend is being quite fair in this respect. Obviously it is impossible to have slaughter-houses and expert staff to meet all the contingencies which arise from time to time. Nine new slaughter-houses are being built at the moment, six of which are in the South and East of Britain. One is being built in Canterbury, and it will be opened in October. We have been able to open six temporary slaughter-houses, which are doing something to relieve the congestion.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Food how many pigs, at the last convenient date, had been notified as awaiting slaughter in the county of Kent.

Major Lloyd George: The number of pigs at present said to be awaiting slaughter and held up by foot-and-mouth disease restrictions is about 2,700.

Feedingstuff Rationing

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food to what extent the feedingstuffs coupons issued to farmers in the past six months have not been used; and if he expects to be able to do away with the rationing of cereals by the end of this year.

Major Lloyd George: About 5 per cent. have not been used. I can see little prospect of derationing feedingstuffs this year.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend keep a very close and sympathetic eye on this problem because the sooner he can get rid of the rationing of cereal feedingstuffs the sooner he will get more pigs and poultry from small producers?

Imported Mutton, Brighton

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Food (1) why the Brighton, Hove and District Butchers Association have been asked to take 800 imported mutton carcases per week throughout the summer season; whether he is aware that similar carcases have been to date causing complaints from purchasers as regards their condition and quality; for how many weeks this summer season will last; and to what extent this demand is being made throughout the United Kingdom on butchers associations in the same proportion to better types of rationed meat; and
(2) whether he is aware that the Brighton, Hove and District Butchers Association were forced to refuse this week, as wholly unsaleable, 138 imported mutton carcases of reconditioned meat; that the Wholesale Meat Suppliers Association promptly destroyed 30 of these carcases as being mildewed and spotty, but refused to replace the 138 carcases with other rationed meat; and whether he will investigate the position and arrange for saleable meat to be provided immediately in substitution.

Major Lloyd George: Issues of imported mutton in all areas are unavoidable at the present time, but they will be reduced as the summer progresses. Butchers in Brighton will not be asked to accept anything like 800 carcases a week. I have taken steps to ensure that they receive no more than a fair share.
The mutton complained about was not reconditioned. It was, I am informed, refused unseen by the representative of the Brighton and Hove butchers after careful technical examination before offer. None of the carcases was destroyed. In the opinion of qualified experts the meat was suitable for the ration, and the question of replacing it did not therefore arise.

Mr. Teeling: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend assure me that if we are not to get in Brighton so many carcasses as I mentioned in my Question, then the Butchers Association were misinformed

on this matter? Also, can he give any indication for how many weeks this is likely to go on? Is he aware that we were informed that it was for the summer season, and does he realise that in a place like Brighton the summer season goes on for a very long time?

Major Lloyd George: This position was due to exceptional circumstances. I will look into the point of how long it will be, but I do not think that Brighton will get any more than the normal proportion.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister give an assurance that if Brighton refuses this meat because it is not good enough, it will not be sent elsewhere—for example, to my constituency?

Major Lloyd George: I think that I can give that assurance.

Australian Exports

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Food what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Australia's vital exports of food to this country are both maintained and expanded.

Major Lloyd George: The maintenance and expansion of Australia's food exports to this country depend upon an increase in production in Australia which has assured markets here. I am in constant contact with the Australian authorities and particularly welcome, therefore, the programme of agricultural expansion recently announced by Mr. Menzies.

Mr. Stokes: That is all very well, but is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, given proper opportunities, Australia is capable of supplying at least 100 million bushels more wheat a year, and, whatever may be the programme in the Minister's mind, has he not contemplated the fact that they cannot do it unless the capital equipment programme for Australia is arranged the right way? At the present moment, is not Australia being cut off from capital equipment, and, therefore, their food production will not increase?

Major Lloyd George: I am not disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman on that, but he will also agree that the immediate trouble at the moment is due to causes entirely out of our control and which have nothing to do with capital equipment—the drought and so forth—


but the programme which was laid down for five years at the conference of Ministers at Canberra last April is one which aims at a very much bigger expansion of many agricultural products.

Mr. Stokes: Surely, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not rightly informed? The fact is that the shipment of capital equipment to Australia is next to impossible. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that, although the drought which has occurred is serious, on the long-term view, what is required is that there shall be increasing shipments of capital equipment to Australia?

Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman was so eager to put his next question that he has not understood what I said. I said that I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman about that, and I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Stokes: What is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going to do?

Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, after all, last April the people in the Government of Australia laid down this programme, which was mentioned by the Australian Prime Minister, and from there we go.

Sir W. Smithers: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the big principle behind all these questions is that, if he restricts consumption, he will restrict production, and, therefore, will he not take off all these controls tomorrow morning?

Jam (Fruit Content)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now increase the fruit content of jam.

Major Lloyd George: I hope to make an announcement within a few days.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that he has now had all the consultations and all the advice that he needs on the subject? Will he, therefore, for the sake of the British fruit growers, who are producing a record fruit harvest this year, and for the sake of the British consumers, who would like to see more fruit in their jam, agree that there is no case whatever against increasing the fruit content of jam forthwith?

Fish Prices

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the fishmongers in Preston, Lancashire, paid 16s.per stone for cod fillets on 31st May, 1952, and for the same quality and type of fish paid 25s. 6d. per stone on 6th June, 1952; and, in view of this wide variance of prices in such a short time, if he will now reconsider his decision regarding the control of fish prices.

Major Lloyd George: At the beginning of this month, with lighter landings due to stormy weather and increased demand, prices rose for a few days. They have fallen again this week as supplies have increased. I cannot agree that these circumstances justify the re-imposition of price control.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister not aware that the people of this country cannot obtain from him a reasonable explanation for the terrific difference in the prices which they have to pay from one day to another, and that they believe that it is entirely due to the fact that there is a great amount of exploitation going on between the amount paid to those who catch the fish and the amount paid when it is eventually bought by the consumer?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think I can agree with that altogether, because the people of this country are supposed to understand the sea, and, if they do, they would realise what it means to go out fishing in bad weather. It is not easy to bring catches home in bad weather, and that is a well-known fact. When the hon. Lady asks me a question about the price going up from 16s. to 25s., may I inform her that the price on the 10th June was between 10s. and 17s., which confirms what I have been saying?

Fruit and Vegetable Trade

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food if he has now reached a decision about the setting up of an independent horticultural commission to reorganize and develop the fruit and vegetable trade.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister likely to reach a decision before the party opposite ceases to be the Government?

Scarce Commodities (Allocation)

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Food whether he now has an announcement to make regarding the revision of the principles of allocation of scarce commodities from the system of allocation according to pre-war performance.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on Wednesday, 11th June.

Mr. Williams: I do not know what was the answer to that Question, but may I ask the Minister how far the discussions went between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry and the Food Industries Council, because the position now is that the pattern of distribution has completely changed, and it is most unfair to a very large section of traders that this should be continued?

Major Lloyd George: I agree with that; the hon. Gentleman's information is correct. The answer is that those concerned are being invited to express their views.

Subsidies

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Food what he estimates will be the total expenditure on food subsidies in the financial year 1952–53.

Major Lloyd George: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the revised Estimate of my Department.

Mr. Jay: But has not the right hon. hon. and gallant Gentleman any figure in mind as a basis on which he decides the changes in the prices of food? If he has such a figure, surely he can tell the House what it is?

Major Lloyd George: I hope to let the House have it early in July.

Food Price Increases

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether, as the figure of Is. 6d. per head per week for the price rise of subsidised foods, rationed and unrationed, was based on the best estimates at the time of the Budget of what our supplies of food would cost us during the year,

he will make a statement on the increases announced some 10 days ago and their effect on this estimated figure of Is. 6d.

Major Lloyd George: The figure of Is. 6d. per head per week related to subsidised foods and still holds good.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really telling the housewives of this country that the cost of living has gone up only Is. 6d. per head per week this year?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Lady's question referred to food. The answer I have given is Is. 6d. per head, and that is the figure, which I see no reason to alter.

Miss Burton: I am certainly referring to food. Does the Minister still maintain that the increase has been only Is. 6d. per head per week?

Major Lloyd George: As a matter of fact, the figure has not yet reached Is. 6d. per week. I have got the figures here, and that figure has not yet been reached. Therefore, I repeat that the figure of 1s. 6d. on subsidised foods still holds good.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Food how many rationed foods have increased in price since 1st November, 1951; how many have decreased; and what is the total effect of the price increases on the retail price index.

Major Lloyd George: Four rationed foods have increased in price since 1st November, 1951, and two have decreased in quantity. Increases in the prices of bacon and cheese have raised the All Items Index by about 1⅓ points. The increases in the prices of meat and tea only became effective on 15th June and are not yet reflected in the Index.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of that answer, and will he consult with his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary who not so long ago said that output was proportionate to intake? There is going to be a very serious decline in output if it is going to be proportionate to intake.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Food the total increase in price over the whole weekly ration since last October;


and how the figure of 2¼d. per ration book was arrived at for the date of 30th April last.

Major Lloyd George: The cost of the weekly rations today is about 8½d. more than the cost of the rations at 25th October, 1951. As a number of figures are involved in answering the second part of the Question, I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister say whether that includes the recent increases in the price of meat?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's original figure was that as at 30th April, but the 8½d. includes the latest increases.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will make no further

Rationed Commodity
Ration level at 25.10.51
Estimated cost at 25.10.51
Ration level at 24.4.52
Estimated cost at 24.4.52


Carcase meat
…
…
…
…
1s.
7d.
1s.
7d.
1s.
2d.
1s.
2d.


Bacon
…
…
…
…
3
oz.

5·8d.
5
oz.
1s.
0·8d.


Cheese
…
…
…
…
1
½oz.

1·3d.
1
oz.

1·5d.


Butter
…
…
…
…
3
oz.

5·6d.
3
oz.

5·6d.


Margarine
…
…
…
…
4
oz.

3·5d.
4
oz.

3·5d.


Cooking Fat
…
…
…
…
2
oz.

2·0d.
2
oz.

2·0d.


Tea
…
…
…
…
2
oz.

5·5d.
2
oz.

5·5d.


Sugar
…
…
…
…
10
oz.

3·8d.
10
oz.

3·8d.









3s.
10½.d.


4s.
0¾d.

Coronation Celebrations

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Food whether in order that local organisations can make plans for celebration of Her Majesty's Coronation, he will indicate what special allowances of rationed foods are likely to be made available for children's street parties and similar functions.

Major Lloyd George: The whole question is being considered. Arrangements already exist under which organisers of such parties could either employ caterers or themselves obtain tea, sugar and margarine on the normal catering scale.

Mr. Chapman: Will the Minister say what, in that case, he means by the fact that arrangements are being considered? Are extra allowances going to be available for the Coronation period?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that local autho-

increases in the price of food until retirement pensions and family allowances are raised?

Major Lloyd George: I gave an undertaking in answer to a Question some time back to see that the two things should synchronise as far as possible, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is difficult to arrange for this to be done in every instance.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that since he gave that answer he has raised the price of meat, which is a complete violation of that undertaking?

Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these increases were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech.

Following are the details:

rities have ideas about certain functions such as children's street parties, and so forth, and that is being done as before.

Horse Slaughtering

Sir R. Cary: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been drawn to recent revelations that, in this country, a technique is being practised by using an electrical device to produce white meat from live horses; and if he will take steps to bring to an end this trade.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Food if his regulations permit the use of electric pumps to drain the blood from horses in slaughterhouses after they have been stunned.

Major Lloyd George: The responsibility for enforcing the Slaughter of Animals Acts rests wholly with local authorities and not with my Department. The Food and Drugs Act prescribes the


conditions under which horse-flesh may be sold for human consumption. I rely on local authorities to enforce these provisions—which I think are adequate. I propose, however, to help them by requiring horse slaughterers to notify their local authority of their intention to slaughter.

Sir R. Cary: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend take steps to inquire whether this matter could be investigated by a Government agency instructed to report to him or to the appropriate Minister concerned and thereby to the House of Commons? Has he no statutory power whereby he could forbid this vile and most barbarous form of slaughtering which consists of first stunning the animal and then by an electrical device extracting the blood from its body in 15 minutes?

Major Lloyd George: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but I will certainly get in touch with him on it.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister say whether the practices referred to in the Questions are really happening in this country?

Major Lloyd George: I gather so from what I have heard, but, as I just told my hon. Friend, I will ask my right hon. Friend to inquire into the matter and see what happens.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has studied the articles published in the "Manchester Guardian" on this subject and whether, in considering an approach to his right hon. Friend, he will bear in mind that we are not going to let the matter rest here? This House will not rest content until this vile practice stops.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: While recognising that the responsibility rests with the local authorities, has my right hon. and gallant Friend no power whatever to inspect and find out for himself what is happening?

Major Lloyd George: The whole question of the slaughter of animals is laid down by statute—I think it was the 1933 Act—and there has been an amendment to it since. That Act lays down how animals must be slaughtered and, as long

as the Act remains what it is and is not contravened, there is nothing that can be done until it is either amended or there is fresh legislation. But, as I have told the House, I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend on the subject.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Minister implying that the practices referred to in the Questions are at present legal, and are we to understand from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's previous answer to a supplementary question that if he thinks these practices are taking place and that they are legal he will take legislative steps to deal with them?

Major Lloyd George: I do not know whether all this is legal or not, but I do know that stunning is referred to in the Act. What we have to satisfy ourselves about is that it is properly done. I can do certain things on that, but, as I promised the House, I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend to see what can be done.

Fat Stock Sales

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food if he is now able to make a statement with regard to the number of fat stock shows at which he will permit auction sales on the lines of the sale at the Smithfield Club Show in 1951.

Major Lloyd George: As an experiment, arrangements rather similar to those made last year will be extended to established Christmas fat stock shows generally and any show committee wishing to participate should make application to my Department before the end of July. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the announcement on the details as soon as it is made.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that his announcement will be very greatly welcomed by the fat stock breeders of this country, and that it is another indication of the determination of the Government to set the people free?

Butchers' Rebate

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Food what is the weekly amount now being paid to the butchers to recoup them for loss of business through meat rationing; and how many pence does this work out per weekly ration.

Major Lloyd George: I take it that my hon. Friend refers to the system of rebates and surcharges on wholesale prices of meat to regulate the profits earned by the retail meat trade at various ration levels. The current rebate amounts to about £260,000 per week or rather more than Id. per ration.

Sugar

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Food what surpluses of sugar exist in this country which can be distributed for preserving fruit.

Major Lloyd George: None, Sir.

Mr. Williams: Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that a large quantity of sugar is being exported from Britain and the Colonies to other Western European countries for the making of fondant which is then returned to this country and sold for the making of sweets at a very much enhanced price? If this is a fact, will he not stop it in order to enable the sugar to be used in this country for the preservation of food?

Major Lloyd George: When we took things over that was indeed so, but we have taken steps to put an end to it.

Argentine Meat

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food if he will now make a statement on the negotiations for the supply of meat from the Argentine.

Major Lloyd George: The negotiations were suspended during the inauguration of President Peron and have not yet been resumed.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that as long ago as April, "The Times" called attention to the fact that this was the longest delay there had ever been in starting these negotiations? Will he do his utmost at least to get them started?

Major Lloyd George: I will repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman some time ago, which is that I hope I shall improve on the record of my predecessor.

Mr. Royle: Will the Minister say how many private traders have so far gone out to buy the meat?

Meat Inspection

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Meat Inspection.

Major Lloyd George: A revised memorandum of methods and criteria of meat inspection will be issued to local authorities in the near future. Draft regulations are being prepared and the representative bodies concerned will be consulted in due course.

Pork and Bacon

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the increasing, number of pigs available for early slaughter, he will make an addition of pork to the meat ration and an addition to the bacon ration.

Major Lloyd George: Bacon factories are working to their full curing capacity and additional pigs are already being taken into the meat ration.

Mr. Hale: Yes, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity, in view of this very substantial extra availability due to Labour planning, to see that this goes to increase the meagre rations and not to the West End restaurants in an effort to set the people free?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's observation; I cannot agree that was the intention of his colleagues in increasing the pig population. The fact of the matter is that the bacon production in this country is much higher, but, of course, pork availability is very much less.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH KOREA (POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given to the Minister of Defence as to the attitude he should adopt in his discussions with the United Nations' command on the announcement made by President Syngman Rhee that he is considering the withdrawal of South Korean troops from the front.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It has been officially stated on behalf of the South Korean Government that President Syngman Rhee made no such announcement. Press comments on the subject are therefore purely speculative. The Minister of Defence and the Minister of State are, of course, currently informed of Her Majesty's Government's views on the situation and will, I have no doubt, discuss with the United Nations Command the political crisis in South Korea in all its relevant aspects.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that President Rhee is doing all he can to prevent the United Nations from ensuring the democratic working of the constitution of South Korea and that we must now call his bluff? Ought not the Government therefore to take the initiative in seeing that, at any rate during the period of the election of the National Assembly, he is put out of the way so that Members of Parliament arrested or forced to flee should be allowed to return to the Assembly and to carry out the election in a constitutional manner free from duress from President Syngman Rhee?

The Prime Minister: I think the OFFICIAL REPORT will enable the hon. Member's solution to this question to be placed on record and given full publicity.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As Mr. Syngman Rhee told the Minister of Defence that he is just as much a democrat as the Prime Minister of Britain, could the Prime Minister tell us if Mr. Syngman Rhee has made any representations for free democratic elections in Britain.

The Prime Minister: The problem is complicated enough as it is.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend state what responsibility he has for the Government of South Korea?

The Prime Minister: I think that as we went in wholeheartedly and unitedly with the Americans under the authority of the United Nations and undoubtedly saved Mr. Syngman Rhee and his Government from destruction, we have a certain right.

Mr. Shinwell: In any event, will the Prime Minister not agree that as the Minister of State has had discussions with President Syngman Rhee and is no

doubt reporting to the Government, this House will be shortly informed of what has occurred?

The Prime Minister: When the Minister of Defence comes back with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, statements will have to be made to Parliament, and it seems to me very probable that requests will be made for opportunities of debate, and the great facilities which the Opposition have in regard to Supply Days may be invoked as well. At any rate, we should certainly wish to lay the whole position frankly before the House.

Mr. Shinwell: That was the point I wished to make. Do I understand from the Prime Minister that, entirely apart from requests made either on Supply or any other day, the Government themselves will wish to make a statement to the House on the results of the conversations that the Minister of Defence has had?

The Prime Minister: Yes. When Lord Alexander comes back I am sure we shall want to hear everything he has to tell us in the Government; and also a statement on this, I think, valuable mission of his must certainly be an important feature in our discussions here.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD PEACE

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that, in order to promote international understanding and to diminish the danger of war an early meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Great Powers including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is desirable, he will now send to such Prime Ministers invitations to prepare an agenda for such a meeting.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to similar questions by the hon. Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Dodds) on 12th November and again on 7th April.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary in his own Government has said that the interchange of views by Notes has not improved international relations, and does not the Prime Minister agree that it is undesirable to have a split in the Government on this vital matter?

The Prime Minister: I trust that the hon. and learned Member will not complicate our affairs by suggesting that there is a split in the Government on this matter. I think there is a pretty good measure of agreement throughout the House on what we would like, but the difficulty is how we can bring it about.

Mr. Dodds: The Prime Minister has given a lot of replies. Would he give an answer on what he personally is doing in view of his former enthusiasm to make this a practical proposition? What has he done in the meantime other than speak about it?

The Prime Minister: It is quite obvious that to make a move which only led to things being worse would not be helpful.

Mr. Manuel: In view of the Prime Minister's promise to the people of Scotland at a huge rally in Ibrox Park at the General Election that there should be a meeting with Stalin to clear up this issue, would he not now keep that pledge?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any question of pledges—not at all. Everyone, or the vast majority of us, would welcome full, sincere and wholehearted talks between the great Western Powers and the Soviet Government. That is what I have always said, and I should feel very greatly responsible if any real opportunity occurred and was not taken advantage of. But a mistake would be very detrimental.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC SERVICE (OATH)

Sir W. Smirhers: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the persistent attempts of the Communists to infiltrate into every kind of organisation, he will take the necessary steps to make it obligatory for all servants of the Crown and of local authorities to take an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors on the lines of the oath taken by Members of Parliament and by the armed forces.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 25th February.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I venture to make this suggestion as an alternative to the use of force against these traitors in our midst.

as they have had to do in France? Is he aware that I have information from a reliable source that there is much subversive influence in the B.B.C.? If I send him particulars, will he study them and send them on to Scotland Yard?

The Prime Minister: I naturally would accept any evidence my hon. Friend chose to lay before me. I hope he will not hesitate to send it to me, to make sure that it is examined. We all know the sincerity of his motives.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION STATUS

Sir R. Acland: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made in Accra by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the conditions on which Dominion status could be granted to new parts of the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has informed me that he made it clear in his discussions in the Gold Coast that while the grant to Colonies dependent upon the United Kingdom of responsible self-government within the Commonwealth is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the territory concerned, if any question were to arise of the admission of a Colony to full and independent membership of the Commonwealth all existing members would be consulted. This is in accordance with the views of the United Kingdom Government.

Sir R. Acland: Whilst appreciating that all would be consulted, would the Prime Minister take notice that the B.B.C. reported the right hon. Gentleman as saying that the grant of Dominion status would require the common consent of all existing Dominions and that the statement in that form would imply not merely that the Dominions would be consulted but that, for example, Dr. Malan would have a power of veto? Is not that report going a little bit further than the accepted position?

The Prime Minister: 1 do not think there is any change in the policy which Her Majesty's Government pursue from what was the policy in the late Government. I see that the late Secretary of


State for Commonwealth Relations on 7th June last, a year ago, said in reply to a similar Question:
Whilst the United Kingdom Government alone carry the responsibility for internal constitutional developments in Colonies dependent upon the United Kingdom, we recognise the interest of the Governments of other members of the Commonwealth, and it is our practice to keep them informed of major developments in that sphere. Were any question of admission to full and independent membership of the Commonwealth to arise, all existing members would, following past practice, be consulted.
In reply to a further supplementary question, he said:
We must make quite clear the distinction between the grant of responsible self-government within the Commonwealth, which is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the territory concerned, and for them alone, and the question of becoming a full member of the Commonwealth, which is of course a matter for all members of the Commonwealth. All steps towards responsible self-government within the Commonwealth are a matter between us and the territory concerned, and we must make that distinction quite clear and abide by it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 1199.]
Her Majesty's present Government endorse that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While welcoming the Prime Minster's reaffrmation of what has been the policy of successive Governments, that the right to grant self-government and the degree of self-government to Colonies is the prerogative of Her Majesty's Government and not of any other Government, may I ask the Prime Miinster whether, in view of circumstances in South Africa he will consider the desirability of making it clear that when Her Majesty's Government come to consider the problem of Dominion status, no single member of the Dominion would have a veto upon the granting of even that status?

The Prime Minister: That is going further, in defining the action that could be taken in cases which have not yet arisen, than would be advisable at the present time.

Mr. Griffiths: While agreeing that that would be asking the Government at the present moment to go further than Governments have gone in previous months or years, may I ask the Prime Minister to consider, in view of what is happening in Africa and the concern which is felt about that in our British Colonies,

whether the time has not come and circumstances do not now warrant going further and giving that undertaking?

The Prime Minister: I think in these matters it is very often better to wait until a specific case arises than to endeavour to lay down broad general affirmations so long beforehand.

Sir R. Acland: Has not the Colonial Secretary, in fact, gone further, at any rate as reported, than the existing understanding in that whereas consultation, as has been previously said, has been accepted on both sides of the House, the right hon. Gentleman implied that common consent was required? Should not that report be corrected if it is wrong?

The Prime Minister: I am not conscious of any difference between the views of the present Government and the late Government on this important issue.

PASSENGER TRANSPORT FARES

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the British Transport Commission's fares. I am afraid that this statement is inevitably rather complicated.
On 28th April the House approved a Motion upholding the decision that disproportionate increases should not be applied to certain passenger charges outside the London area and agreeing that means should be sought of applying the same principle, as far as practicable, to rail and omnibus fares already introduced within the London area.
Discussions have taken place with the British Transport Commission, and I am now able to announce that the following modifications will be made in the increased passenger charges which were brought into force in the London area on 2nd March and those which it was proposed to bring into force outside that area on 1st May.
Each sub-standard charge will be increased only by the same amount as a standard charge of the same value, in the following cases:
Ordinary and early morning fares and season ticket rates on London Transport.
Workmen's and early morning fares, and season ticket rates, other than those for Traders' Season Tickets, on British Railways.
This will involve the restoration of the stages in operation prior to 2nd March on the road services of London Transport. In those cases where workmen's tickets are now available up to 8.30 a.m. or later, early morning tickets will be available up to 8.30 a.m. The issue of shift workers' tickets will be resumed in the London area on the basis in force immediately prior to 2nd March, and continued outside that area on the existing basis.
Under the Commission's Passenger Charges Scheme in relation to British Railways, ordinary fares on the basis of 1.75d. per mile have replaced ordinary fares on the basis of 2.44d. per mile and monthly return fares on the basis of 1.79d. per mile. In spite of this, there is still a number of sub-standard ordinary fares on British Railways. These will be increased by only 20 per cent. in the circumstances in which the Passenger Charges Scheme provides for a limitation of 42 per cent.
Concession fares which were on a general basis of one-half ordinary fare, will be continued on a general basis of three-quarters of the new and reduced ordinary fare. Those which were on a general basis of two-thirds of the ordinary fare, will be replaced by the reduced ordinary fare. In both cases, the increase in the general basis will be less than 10 per cent. The discount on Bulk Travel fares will cease. Fares for members of the Forces and Mercantile Marine and their wives and children are the subject of separate consideration.
The resultant loss of revenue through all these changes is estimated to be about £1,240,000 in the London area and £660,000 outside that area, a total of £1,900,000 in a full year. It is hoped to bring the modified charges into force in the London area on Sunday, 31st August and outside that area on the following day. The work involved will be very considerable, and I am sure the House will be grateful to the Commission and its staff for their efforts in making these dates possible.

Mr. Callaghan: The subject is certainly complicated. May I ask the Minister if this would be an accurate summary of what he has said: First, that

in London there is to be a small saving for the travelling public of £1,200,000 out of the £13 million increase that they are paying? Secondly, that in the provinces there is to be a further actual increase in fares on 1st September of about £1,500,000, but that instead of the total increased contribution being £5 million, the increased contribution from the provinces will be altogether £4.4 million; and, summing it up, that as a result of this hullabaloo the Government are now extorting altogether a further charge of £16 million instead of the £18 million that was conceded by the Transport Tribunal?
If that is a fair summary of the position, may I ask the Minister how the Commission will make up the loss of £2 million that the Government's actions have resulted in; and secondly what legislation, if any, would be required as a result of the decision to go back on certain London increases that have already been made?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall attempt to answer that question as best I can. I shall deal with the last point first. No legislation will be necessary. As to the hon. Gentleman's calculations, this is an exceedingly complicated subject and I think hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, had much better read the figures that I gave. But this I can most certainly say: the decision that I am now announcing to the House carries out to the full the recommendations made by the House of Commons on 28th April, and the disproportionate increases to which attention was then drawn are now being eliminated.
As to the way in which these extra charges will be met out of the revenue of the Commission, the Commission has agreed to carry out the wishes of this House, but not unnaturally they do not welcome the loss of revenue involved. There was, however, a Question on the Paper today which I would have answered had it been reached, in reply to which I would have announced that the accounts of the Commission will be available after Questions in the Vote Office of the House of Commons.
Members will see that the turnover of the Commission is some £600 million a year, and though the sum involved in these very important modifications is a


formidable one, it is not so formidable in the light of that large overall figure. But I must, of course, remind the House, that now, as for many years past, passengers in London and outside are really travelling on the backs of the nation's freight charges.

Captain Ryder: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this attempt by the Government to achieve some modification of these very severe increases in transport fares will be much appreciated in the London area, more particularly as the Government were so severely criticised by the Front Bench opposite for intervening in this matter? May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear this in mind and try to arrange control of London Transport to ensure some permanent protection for London travelling public that will not need repeated interventions by the Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he has said. But for the action of my predecessor a very great and disproportionate hardship would have been imposed on a large proportion of the London and provincial travelling public.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Minister could not answer some of the other questions in regard to the figures, may I ask the simple question whether there is to be an actual increase in fares in the provinces on 1st September next?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course there is; but the whole point of the Motion in the House of Commons was to make it quite plain that disproportionate increases could not be tolerated, and that matter the Government has seen to and fulfilled to the letter.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Minister quite rightly says that this is a complicated matter; but certain figures do emerge. Would not he agree that as far as the total increase is concerned, the country as a whole is to bear £4½million, of which £3 million has already been imposed, and that London has to bear an increase of £11¾ million? That means that London is paying a larger increase than the rest of the country, to the extent of some £7¼ million. Does not he consider that London's share is disproportionate, and may I further ask him

whether there is any danger that, as a result of the saving of this £2 million, there will be a deterioration in the services in the London area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly do not agree in the least with the last point of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am quite ready to answer, on any future occasions, any questions arising after hon. Members have had the chance of reading this very complicated statement. I think hon. Members should read it carefully, because one of the questions put by the hon. Gentleman shows how dangerous it is to draw general conclusions of that kind. In London fares have been remarkably and disproportionately low for a long time, and that is the reason for some part of the statement I have made.

Mr. Beswick: Cannot the Minister please answer one question? Is it the fact that London passenger travellers will be expected to pay £11.8 million more as a result of these changes? Secondly, as the Minister has described these increases as a grave and gross hardship, and as they will be inflicted for a period of five months, would the Minister now answer Question No. 75 which asks what arrangements will be made to repay to London passengers the excess amount collected over this period of five months?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman will carefully read the statement I have made he will see that the Commission will get £1.4 million from outside London and will lose £1.24 million of what they had expected to get from inside London. This makes it all the more important to come to a speedy solution, both in the interests of all travellers and of the Commission itself.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one result of what has been speciously called a hullabaloo is that for the first time a Minister has been able to come here and announce what are to be the rates and fares in this gigantic transport monopoly, and will that situation continue to persist until the railways and the road services have been effectively de-centralised?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would remind my noble Friend that the role of the Minister in this matter was to see that gross


anomalies did not persist. I think it is most important that I should not go beyond that perfectly proper line.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that his statement means that for a period of six months the gross anomalies to which he has referred have been imposed on the London travelling public and that for the period of six months, at the rate of over £20,000 a week, the London travelling public has been mulcted as a result of the Government's vacillation in this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I can say that those anomalies are exclusively the result of legislation for.which his party were responsible.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the Government have engaged in this matter of fares for the purpose of political manoeuvring in connection with the local government elections, will the Minister give us an undertaking that if they are going to manoeuvre again in connection with the next local government election—if they are still in office—we shall be given notice of what is to be the manoeuvre before the election takes place?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House.

BILL PRESENTED

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

"to authorise certain increases in the case of pensions to which the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 and 1947 apply, and of certain other pensions," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe, Mr. J. Stuart, Miss Florence Horsbrugh, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and Mr. Marples; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes. 210; Noes, 138.

Division No. 162.]
AYES
[3.46 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hay, John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cole, Norman
Heath, Edward


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hirst, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, John
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mollis, M. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crouch, R. F.
Holt, A F.


Baker, P. A. D.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hope, Lord John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Horobin, I. M.


Banks, Col. C.
Donner, P. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Barber, Anthony
Doughty, C. J. A
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Drayson, G. B.
Hurd, A. R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T (Richmond)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A L.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gosport)
Duthie, W. S.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Birch, Nigel
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bishop, F. P.
Fell, A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Black, C. W.
Finlay, Graeme
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bossom, A. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Braine, B. R.
Fort, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lambton, Viscount


Bromley-Davenport, LI.-Col. W H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leather, E. H. G


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. Lloyd
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Bullard, D G.
Godber, J B
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lennox-Boyd, Rt Hon. A. T.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gough, C F. H.
Linstead, H. N.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gower, H. R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Butcher, H. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lockwood, Lt.-Col J. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Gary, Sir Robert
Harden, J. R. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Churchill, Rt. Hon W. S
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McAdden, S. J.




Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Pitman, I. J.
Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Powell, J. Enoch
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Studholme, H. G


Macleod, Rt. Hon, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L
Summers, G. S


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Profumo, J. D
Sutcliffe, H.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Raikes, H. V.
Teeling, W.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marples, A. E.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thomeycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Roper, Sir Harold
Turner, H, F. L,


Maudling, R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turton, R. H.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, R. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mellor, Sir John
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Molson, A. H. E.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott, R. Donald
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smiles, Ll.-Col. Sir Walter
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Watkinson, H A.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wellwood, W.


Nutting, Anthony
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Oakshott, H. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Speir, R. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Partridge, E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S)



Pickthorn, K. W. M
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Mr. Drewe and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Rt Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, J


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paton, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Peart, T. F.


Ayles, W. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Porter, G.


Bence, C. R.
Hannan, W.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, G.
Hargreaues, A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Beswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hayman, F. H.
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Richards, R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hoy, J. H
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Sparks, J. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Burton, Miss F. E
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sylvester, G. O.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Chetwynd, G. R
Keenan, W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Cocks, F. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Taylor. Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Coldrick, W.
Kinley, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Collick, P. H.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Viant, S. P.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Daines, P.
McGhee, H. G.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
West, D. G.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McLeavy, F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Deer, G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wigg, George


Dodds, N. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Wilkins, W A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Edelman, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Follick, M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Foot, M. M.
Moyle, A
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wyatt, W. L.


Gibson, C W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Yates, V. F.


Glanville, James
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon K


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Padley, W. E.



Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Panned, Charles
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Resolution agreed to.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Standing Committee:

Class V, Vote 14, National Health Service, Scotland.
Class IV, Vote 14, Public Education, Scotland.
Class III, Vote 16, Approved Schools, Scotland.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported.
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants in respect of the ploughing up of land under grass and the carrying out of further operations on the land after ploughing it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of grants, in accordance with a scheme or schemes made by a Minister of the Crown, in respect of the ploughing up, on or after the fifth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, of land in the United Kingdom under grass (as denned in the said Act of the present Session) and the carrying out of further operations if the scheme so provides, on the land after ploughing; and
(b)of any expenses of administration incurred by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of any scheme under the said Act of the present Session.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PAYMENT OF PLOUGHING GRANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEMES.)

3.56 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment on the Order Paper, in the name of the hon. Member, for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is not selected. The second Amendment, in the name of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and some of his hon. Friends, is rather complicated and rather difficult to understand. It seems to me that it makes payment compulsory when, under the Money Resolution, it would be contingent. If the right hon. Gentleman can show me that I am wrong, I will call the Amendment, but it is a very complicated matter and I am in some difficulty about it.

Mr. George Brown: With great respect, Sir Charles, what the Amendment seeks to do, and what I believe in fact it does do, is not to make payment compulsory where, as the Bill is at present drawn, it would be left contingent; but to add a second contingency which must be satisfied before a grant is payable. What we are seeking to do is to limit the grants to an even narrower class of people and to require that an even greater number of contingencies should be satisfied before they are paid than is at present provided. I submit that the Amendment is, therefore, within the Money Resolution and in order. I hope you will call it. Sir Charles, so that we may debate a principle of some importance.

The Chairman: If the right hon. Member looks at the Money Resolution, he will see that it says,
(a….)in accordance with a scheme or schemes.

Mr. Brown: I am aware of that, and we are not proposing to leave out that payment shall be in accordance with the schemes. What we are seeking to do is to provide that the schemes must require that certain contingencies are fulfilled before payment is made. The money will still be paid only in accordance with the schemes, and that is provided in the first two lines of Clause 1 (1). What we shall


seek to do, further down the subsection, is to see that the money cannot be paid without a further contingency, namely, that of cropping, being satisfied. I submit, therefore, that we are within the Money Resolution.

The Chairman: Very well.

Mr. Brown: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "if the scheme so provides."
I am well aware that all Departments, and particularly their lawyers, always want to draw everything sufficiently wide that never at any time, in the wildest bounds of imagination, would they be likely to be caught out through making a scheme which is ultra vires. I have little doubt that the Minister will tell us that he proposes always to make his schemes in accordance with what we are here suggesting.
4.0 p.m.
The position is that we are providing this subsidy, or production grant, which I think is the new and favoured title, against an operation called ploughing up; but it is obviously of no value to anybody merely to have the land ploughed. Something needs to be done with the land after it is ploughed. The Parliamentary Secretary, in answering the Second Reading debate, said that of course a chap always will cultivate his land once he has ploughed it. I submit that, if that is so, it is an additional reason for making quite clear what we are paying for.
We are paying the grant to encourage the farmer to bring more land under the plough as an essential prerequisite to raising the output of food from his land. If the scheme were to be drawn in such a way that a man could get £5 merely for ploughing, without any further work being done, it would be a complete waste of £5 an acre. If the Parliamentary Secretary says again, as he said in the Second Reading debate, that the farmers will always crop once they have ploughed, I ask him to consider a further point.
Under the Bill as it is drafted, the Minister may not only require the man to carry out his operations according to the Bill, but he has the right to inspect to see that the cultivation and the work are properly done—in fact, to see that there has been a real attempt to produce

the food. If the scheme were to be so drafted that only the ploughing-up operation were included in it, the only operation the Minister could check, supervise and look at as to efficiency, would be the ploughing. If I plough up one of my fields under this arrangement, and the scheme under which I get money does not provide that I should sow it down with potatoes or corn, there is nothing to enable the Minister to come along, through one of his agents, to see what I have done about that cropping.
I remember that when I was an agent of the war-time Minister of Agriculture, on one of his county executive committees, we had very great trouble with people who collected the ploughing-up grant or collected the potato acreage payment and then, for instance, planted their potatoes very wide apart. Indeed, one had very good reason to suspect that another crop was being taken in between times. Anyhow, the potatoes were very wide apart indeed, and the subsequent crop of potatoes was a very small one simply because the land was not cropped properly. If the scheme were to include requirements as to cropping, then the Minister, through his agents, would have grounds on which to say to a farmer, "You have not really done this according to the requirements of good husbandry, and I am going to disallow your payment, or disallow part of it."
Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment and of subsequent Amendments is to ensure that every scheme shall require both the ploughing-up and the subsequent cultivating, and cropping of the land with certain specified crops, so that we try, as far as we can, to see that we get some food for our money and not merely the carrying out of a number of operations, and to see that we get control over what is done with the land after ploughing.
I am very well aware that the Minister has said that in his first scheme he is going to do exactly this—that he will require the land to have been down to grass for a certain period and then that it should be cropped with one of a certain number of specific crops. All we are asking the Minister to do is to put into the Bill what he is going to do in his first scheme anyway—and what, I suspect, always will be done. I cannot recall off-hand any scheme where we did


not, over the years, have the requirement that this should be so, and I should be surprised if the Minister intended to pay merely for ploughing up and not for cropping afterwards.
The Amendment is designed to bring the Bill into line with past practice and with what I hope, and indeed feel sure, must be the future intention of the Minister.

Mr. R. T. Paget: This Amendment does seem to be of some importance. The general principle on which we work agriculture, and have worked it since 1945, and, indeed, since before then under Defence Regulations, is to provide a final price which is guaranteed and which is an incentive to the farmer. I believe in providing for the farmer by a price, leaving to the farmer the decision how he can best use his land, and I believe that the direction of the production should, in general, be governed by variation within the price award.
Now a subsidy, which is a payment for a precise object of production, should, in my submission, be used only sparingly, and used only where we want to get a sudden change in the general picture of production which cannot be brought about by a price variation, which would be effective only some years after. The calf subsidy is a perfectly good example of that. A variation of beef prices, which the farmer would receive only some three or four years later, is not so effective as a subsidy at an earlier stage—that is to say, the calf—which is immediately payable.
But for these very reasons, where we are using a subsidy, a subsidy should be used very precisely indeed; it should be used to bring about the particular increase which the Minister has in mind, and should be strictly confined to bringing about that increase. Thus, I believe that any scheme for a ploughing subsidy should be very tightly drawn. Just what we want additional ploughing for should be considered. The subsidy, one must remember, is an advance payment on account of an ultimate product which we want to see increased, and we must be quite certain that we get the product which we are paying for on account.
We can do that only if we draw our scheme tightly, and it is for that reason that this Amendment and a number of our Amendments have been put down.

It is to make these conditions obligatory. It is to make a tight drawing of the scheme obligatory. We never want to drift into a situation in which we support agriculture, not by a price which the farmer earns, but by a series of subsidies, which add up to nobody knows what, the reasons for the granting of which are forgotten, and which tend to be cumulative. Subsidy policy should have particular application. It should be exceptional. It should have a precise objective, and it should be confined to that precise objective, and it should be limited to the period necessary to bring about the change before the real instrument—that is, price—can be operative.
Those are the reasons why I hope to hear that the Minister will accept this and other Amendments designed to put into the Bill things which, I think, he has probably got in mind with regard to the schemes. I hope he will put these into the Statute, so that the schemes shall, in a single word, all be tightly drawn and it shall be made clear that we never drift into a general subsidy policy.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider the arguments which have been addressed to him in this matter because I think I can almost hear the vicarious whisper of the Parliamentary draftsman saying to him, "These words merely mean that you have a discretion." But they mean that the Minister has a very substantial discretion about the whole expenditure under the Bill. These words are the controlling words. The Minister himself said, in the opening stage of the debate on Second Reading, that Clause 1 deals with the making of schemes. He went on:
It is made clear in this Clause that the payment of the grant may depend not only on the ploughing up of land, but also upon the fulfilment of certain other requirements, such as the sowing of approved crops, the rates of grant, the kind of land covered, and the period during which the ploughing must take place will be set out in the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 422.]
The first verb is "may" but, as the Minister gathered confidence, it became "will."
There is a real difficulty in that these words really cannot be said in any way to conform to the details of Clause 3, which makes it clear that the Government's intention, which no one doubted,


is that detailed provisions shall be made. But the effect of the words in Clause 1 is that it would be within the power of any Minister of Agriculture, if he so wished, to make these grants subject to no control and no specified conditions. When, as the Minister has announced to the House, the grant is to be back-dated, very properly and rightly, to the cases in which land was ploughted up after 4th February, it is right that some condition should be specified, as is done in the scheme.
Another important matter concerns reduction in the figure of ploughed land this year compared with last year, which was put by my right hon. Friend at 500,000 acres, and by the Minister at 400,000 acres, so I assume a figure between those two—perhaps a little nearer 500,000 than 400,000. The Minister said that he believed that 500,000 acres of four-year leys have been ploughed up since 4th February. It seems to me that some of this might have qualified for the subsidy in 1947. The Minister may say that that is approved agricultural practice, that it is a very good thing that these four-year leys should have a period under pasture and a period under arable.
The Committee should be told whether it is the intention that land may qualify for subsidy by a normal rotation of crops and a normal method of dealing with land. There may be a question whether, if there has been a payment of £4 for ploughing up in 1947, a payment should also be made in 1952, after we have had some experience of the working of the subsidy scheme and seen how agricultural policy has worked out.
Clause 3 gives in detail the sort of conditions that may be stipulated by the Minister in the scheme. The Minister went rather wider than the Clause of the Bill in dealing with the sort of conditions which he thought fit to impose. I come from a dairy-farming part of the country, where we are proud of our pasture. In these days of shortages of cheese and milk there are questions which arise from a totally different aspect, and which I shall not emphasise now. Most of us deplore the loss of arable land over the last 12 months and would welcome sincere and determined efforts to right the balance. We on this side of the Committee welcome even more the develop-

ment which this Amendment is designed to aid. Even though it is a modest contribution, it should be accepted by the Minister.

4.15 p.m.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I intervene to put forward a practical point. I hope that if any alteration is made in the Clause it will not prejudice the practice, where desirable, of a bare fallow for the summer, as that is often the best way of clearing the land, and the putting in of a crop in the autumn.

Mr. Paget: But this provision is for ploughing-up grants. Surely one ought not to bare fallow in connection with a ploughing grant.

Colonel Clarke: I do not want to go into any technical or legal arguments with the hon. and learned Member. I put this suggestion forward to make certain that in consideration of any Amendment to this Clause we do not do anything that might be prejudicial to the practice of bare fallowing.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): As the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) supposed, it was our intention, in the drafting of this Bill, to give the Government and my right hon. and gallant Friend the greatest possible freedom in framing these schemes. It is quite true, as he observed, that in practice it is our general intention to specify in the scheme such conditions of subsequent cultivations and probably sowings as are specified in the first two schemes.
In drafting this Bill, however, we thought it not impossible that we might want to apply the ploughing subsidy in conditions in which further cultivations would possibly not follow immediately in the period of the scheme, and that it might, therefore, be undesirable to tie our hands in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
I wish to make it plain that the general intention, which I thought was clearly put by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), is that in the use of these specific subsidies we should take care to see that the result is precise and that we do get what we are aiming to get. That is the whole justification for using them, that we regard the price


weapon as being too blunt and that in this way we ensure that we get the increase in production that we want.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell us what sort of circumstances he envisages in which a man would be paid for ploughing up his grassland but in which cropping operations would not follow within any reasonable time?

Mr. Nugent: It is possible to envisage the case in which a one-year scheme ran, for example, from 1st June to 31st May. In the form now envisaged, the scheme would require that after ploughing a field should be cropped over, let us say, for the 1953 harvest. It is quite possible that it would be desirable that that field should be bare fallowed. There I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. It is quite possible that a field may be so dirty with weeds of different kinds that it is desirable that it should be bare fallowed in the year that it is ploughed up.

Mr. Paget: Surely only if it is ploughed up too late? If it is ploughed up, as grassland ought to be ploughed, at the proper time—a later Amendment deals with this matter—the frost gets in it, and that does the job, at the proper time, that is done by a bare fallow. If people are to be encouraged to plough in May a bare fallow will be required, but it is surely better to get out of the land what it can give from May onwards by ploughing at the back end of the year, when the frost will get into it.

Mr. Nugent: I must not go too far in this technical argument, fascinating though it is. I agree that it is most beneficial, especially in the case of heavier land, to get the frost into the fallow so that it breaks down to a nice condition for the spring sowing. That frost will not kill the weeds. Weeds such as buttercups and docks will come again the following summer. It is true that nowadays we have the benefit of chemical sprays, but in the old days the regular practice was to have a bare fallow in order to kill weeds in the hot sun when the weeds were thrown up with roots disconnected.
I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was the proper practice to start with a bare fallow where the

pasture was particularly dirty with weeds. I put that forward in order to justify to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who still seems to be not entirely convinced, why this year we felt it was desirable to leave the scheme as wide as possible, although we always had clearly in mind the same intention as has been put to us by hon. Members opposite.
Our intention being there, we are perfectly willing, in order to make progress, to accept the principle of the Amendments. There is one specific aspect of the Amendments which, I think, will have a slightly restrictive effect, and therefore, we would prefer not to accept the Amendments precisely as put on the Order Paper, but we would be willing to accept the principle, that is to say, that in all schemes it should be a condition that subsequent cultivation should be required, and we will put down for the Report stage the necessary Amendments to give effect to that.

Mr. G. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary took some time and a rather circuitous route to arrive there, but finally he got off at the right station. It would be churlish of me not to thank him and the Minister of Agriculture for giving consideration to the Amendments and to the arguments put forward, and, on the assurance that other Amendments will cover the spirit of those which have been put down, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "or for Northern Ireland."
It may be convenient, Sir Charles, to consider, at the same time, the Amendments in page 1, line 13, and, in Clause 5, page 3, lines 20, 25, and 27, all of which deal with the Northern Ireland position, and to regard them as forming one block.
The Bill provides that there may be separate schemes for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Strangely enough, on the Second Reading the Minister of Agriculture said that it was proposed to have two schemes, one for Scotland and one for England and Northern Ireland. This is a most unnatural partnership, and one of which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not, I think, approve, as I will explain to the Committee in a moment.
We ought not in this Committee to treat with quite such disrespect the Parliament of Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. In 1920, we transferred certain limited powers to the Government of Northern Ireland. Of all the powers which we transferred, the most important was that concerning agriculture. The whole of the agricultural services for Northern Ireland were transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland.
I am quite certain that the Minister of Agriculture is a devoted student of the speeches of the Prime Minister. I am not going to delay the Committee by quoting from them, but if the Minister goes to those speeches he will find that the Prime Minister says time and time again that the secret of the Irish question is the land. In those days, the Prime Minister was a Liberal, and he spoke a great deal about the land. Now he leaves it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture.
At any rate, I think it was generally recognised that the problem of farming in Ireland, both in the north and in the south, was an entirely different problem from that of farming in England and Scotland. In those circumstances, one of the reasons for having separate Parliaments was so that they could deal separately with their agricultural problems. That is one of the few problems which is left to the Government of Northern Ireland to deal with.
It is a fantastic suggestion to have a joint scheme for England and Northern Ireland. In whose interest is this scheme to be drawn up? Is it to be in the interest of the Irish farmers? It is well known that hon. Gentlemen opposite are always well prepared to sacrifice British interests when it comes to helping the Conservative Government of Northern Ireland. Are they proposing to make some sacrifices in the English scheme to assist the people of Northern Ireland, or is it the view, now that she has contributed her quota of members to the majority of the party opposite—practically the whole of the majority—that it is not really worth while even considering what are her most important interests in agriculture?
So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, while she contributes a good deal of things in terms of other industries, in fact,

agriculture is by far the principal interest. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 55 per cent. or 56 per cent. of the working population of Northern Ireland is connected directly or indirectly with agriculture. Therefore, it would seem to be very important that we should have—and this is the object of these Amendments-separate schemes, one devoted to England and the other to Northern Ireland.
The whole basis of farming in the two countries is entirely different. If one looks at the appendices to the Price Review which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has recently produced, in the footnote to the first appendix one gets the idea of the difference. In England we count land only above one acre. When dealing with holdings, we consider only holdings over one acre. Any smaller ones it is not considered worth while counting as holdings at all. In Ireland one counts as a holding one-quarter of an acre. The whole basis of the scheme depends on ploughing up to one acre, but we are to deal with a country where we are counting holdings of less than one acre.
If one considers the size of farms, the average size of a general farm in Northern Ireland is about 59 acres. A comparable type of farm in England is about 225 acres. That is a tremendous difference in kind. It is, of course, not only a difference in kind but a difference in the type of things which are grown. This, I should have thought, was one of the most important differences which would commend itself to the Minister.
Broadly, the scheme is designed to save foreign currency, and particularly hard currency, by cutting down imports of feedingstuffs and materials from abroad. What is the crop which is almost exclusive to Northern Ireland, which is grown hardly anywhere else, and which involves the greatest expenditure of hard currency—of Belgian francs? It is flax. One does not find anywhere that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to encourage the growing of flax. It is forgotten altogether.
4.30 p.m.
Of all the increased costs in foreign currency, the rise in the cost of flax has been one of the most remarkable that we have faced. Flax from Belgium alone cost us about £4,800,000 in 1949, £6,800,000 in 1950 and £8,500,000 in


1951. Taking the hard currency areas so far as one can calulate them from the Trade and Navigation Returns, we were spending, roughly speaking, £10 million in hard currency on imports of flax last year.
The whole farming scheme in Northern Ireland was originally based on the growing of flax. That is the reason for the linen industry to this day in Northern Ireland. The forms and the division of land are too complicated a matter for me to go into now, but the whole of the so-called Ulster tenure was built up and devoted to the growing of flax, and there exists today throughout Northern Ireland all the machinery for dealing with flax.
How will the scheme deal with flax? Will the English scheme have a section dealing with flax? Will flax be one of the approved crops? Shall we equally encourage the farmers in England to grow flax as we do the farmers in Northern Ireland? Or shall we have a special section in the English scheme saying that it applies not to England but only to Northern Ireland? How shall we deal with the flax problem? This is a very important problem, for £10 million in hard currency per year is no mean amount. It is comparable to some of the cuts in imported foodstuffs from the Continent which have had to be borne by the people.
There is a further complicated problem for Northern Ireland. Within the Six Counties there is not grown anything like the amount of feedingstuffs required for the cattle and particularly the pigs and poultry bred there. As I understood the Minister's Second Reading speech, the principal object of the scheme is to secure the home growing of these rough feeding-stuffs. The figures for 1949, which are the only ones that I have, showed that the amount of feedingstuffs imported into Northern Ireland was about £3,800,000. That represents the deficit on the amount of rough feedingstuffs required for the raising of poultry, cattle and so on in Northern Ireland.
It may be all right to encourage greater production of rough feedingstuffs there, but a curious factor with which the Minister may like to deal in relation to the Northern Ireland issue is that the 26 counties comprising the Irish Republic imported £539,000 worth of feedingstuffs in the comparable period. That is the first

reason there should be a different scheme for Northern Ireland, preferably a scheme produced with the approval, co-operation and support of the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.
It is ridiculous for the House of Commons to set up a separate Parliament in Northern Ireland and, having said that we cannot debate here what takes place in Northern Ireland, then to say, in regard to agriculture, that the Minister there is not allowed to have anything to do with it and is merely a lay figure. That is not a very courteous way to treat an area which has returned the effective part of the Conservative majority.
Looking at it from another angle, it is essential before we have any scheme at all to make certain that we can control the uses to which will be put the materials produced by the scheme as a whole. There is still no system of milk rationing in Northern Ireland. There milk can be used for commercial purposes, and there are various factories for making buttons and other articles out of milk. It is highly undesirable that we should run a scheme to produce feedingstuffs to feed the animals when their product does not come back to us by way of food but is used for various commercial purposes by a Government which we cannot control. We ought to control either the whole of the economy or none of it. It is no use our pouring money in by way of subsidy and not being able to control the economy as a whole.
There is another and even more serious aspect of the question of subsidy. It is one which must be tackled sooner or later and might be tackled now in a review on the lines which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down as general policy in regard to all these matters. When we were dealing with food subsidies—those paid not to the producer but to the consumer—the Chancellor, in cutting them, said that people ought not to have what they cannot afford to pay for and that they ought to pay the real prices.
It is perfectly justifiable for us, as a Government, to say that within this whole taxable area we will devote some of the products of taxation to the subsidising of certain producers who are doing a particularly good job of work, but in regard to Northern Ireland we must make up our minds where we stand. Are we in favour of a general subsidy to


Northern Ireland or are we not? The Committee must realise that if we include Northern Ireland in the scheme, the money will be paid by the taxpayers of Great Britain to the farmers of Northern Ireland.
I am not necessarily saying that that is undesirable and that the taxpayers of Great Britain should not come to the rescue of the farmers of Northern Ireland, but it certainly makes absolute nonsense of the financial relations which are supposed to exist between the Gov-ments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These relations are based on the Northern Ireland Act, 1920. I do not want to weary the Committee by going into them any more than I need to demonstrate what will be the effect of including a producer subsidy in this way outside the general financial scheme which was provided for by that Act.
It was decided, roughly speaking, that Northern Ireland should pay her proper share of the total cost of defence, the National Debt, the Civil List, the Foreign Service and other things which were national matters, and that sum has been assessed at roughly 2½ per cent. of the total paid by the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that the sum may be too high and that the taxable capacity of Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom is too high on that basis, but the people in Northern Ireland were only about 54 per cent. ——

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting rather wide of the subject now before us.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Sir Charles, I do not think so. It is a very difficult argument and I am sorry if I have not made it clear. What we are really discussing, in considering whether or not to include Northern Ireland in the scheme, is whether or not we should subsidise a service in Northern Ireland. The financial arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland provide that the total cost of all the services ought to be borne out of transferred taxes, the amount of taxes which are transferred back to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland. The proposal here is not that the cost should come from the transferred taxes, but that it should be paid direct out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and not the Consolidated

Fund of Northern Ireland. But into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland is paid the whole of the produce of the taxes in Northern Ireland. What we are doing is paying twice over.
There is already placed at the disposal of the Government of Northern Ireland, as I was going on to show, the whole of the produce of taxation from Northern Ireland from whatever source it comes. What happens, in fact, is that the taxes as a whole from Northern Ireland are collected up to about 75 per cent. by the Imperial Government, as it is called in Northern Ireland, and they are paid back, less certain deductions, into the Northern Ireland Exchequer. The Northern Ireland Government are expected to meet out of those payments the general costs with which they are faced.
Under this Bill, it is quite a different position. Not only are we paying back the product of the taxation which we are getting from Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland, having got its share of the money already collected, takes out of Great Britain's share a sum of money from Great Britain over and in addition to the sums which have been paid to Northern Ireland.
The point I was dealing with was the comparative wealth of the areas, which is certainly a thing which ought to be taken into account in deciding whether we ought to adopt this scheme. I wanted to make the position clear very briefly, because I do not want the thing to broaden out and go too far. All I was saying was that, roughly speaking, the income per head in Northern Ireland before the war was 54 per cent. and is now about 75 per cent, of that of Great Britain, so that in those circumstances there is a sound argument for our paying some larger sum than we would normally pay, particularly if it is going to have a good effect on Irish agriculture and the raising of stock in Ireland.

Mr. Hale: When my hon. and learned Friend speaks about this 2½ per cent, as being too high, has he taken into account the fact that had Northern Ireland had a Labour Government, and, therefore full employment, the income per head would have risen in proportion to the amount of that full employment?

The Chairman: I do not think that that has any bearing on this Amendment.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that, and I will not deal with interruptions which otherwise would be very tempting to follow. Irrespective of the political set-up in the two countries and whether either Government has made a mistake or not, when one takes the sums which have been paid back by way of subsidy in various ways to Northern Ireland over the last four years, one finds that the whole contribution which Northern Ireland should have paid towards all these services, such as the Foreign Service, the National Debt, the cost of the Armed Forces and so on, has been completely swallowed up. They have never paid more than one half of 1 per cent. of the total over the last four years, and the Imperial contribution, a sum which should have been left here——

Mr. Archer Baldwin: What has the contribution of Northern Ireland to our Exchequer to do with this point?

The Chairman: I think it is rather difficult to see. I have stopped the hon. and learned Member once or twice already.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, this scheme is for the purpose of paying out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom a sum of money by way of subsidy. The total amount of money which is available for Irish agriculture has already been paid out as part of the transferred sum, because the whole of the product of taxation of Northern Ireland has already been transferred back to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act less certain sums which are retained here. As a result of this scheme and a number of other schemes, which have already taken effect, sums which are retained here to meet these various costs, like Defence, the National Debt, the Civil List and so on, have already been eaten up.
4.45 p.m.
It seems to me, therefore, highly relevant to decide whether we should put on a further burden or not. The Committee may well decide that it is desirable to do so, but we should act in the knowledge of the facts as they exist. I was going on to say that the whole of the Imperial contribution is already accounted for by way of subsidy, and in those circumstances it seems to me that the Committee

ought to consider whether they should undertake a new burden. In 1950, the gross contribution from Northern Ireland which appears in our own accounts is a sum of some £20 million, but against that one has to set various agency costs, and the amount paid into the Imperial Exchequer is about £16,400,000.
Against that one has also to set a producer subsidy already paid which amounts to £5 million, and food subsidies which amount to £13 million, and if one adds to these various agencies, one gets a figure of £19 million, so that already Northern Ireland's account has a hopeless deficit. We ought to have some argument why we should be prepared to undertake this extra and additional expense.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: My hon. and learned Friend is making the point that Northern Ireland is out of balance. Supposing we agree to this subsidy, can he say in terms of expense what it will amount to?

Mr. Bing: It is difficult for me to say that. I was hoping we should get that from the Minister, because it depends on what sort of scheme is to be produced. If it were with the idea of encouraging the growing of flax, it might mean considerable expense, but in the long run it might be a great saving because the sterling area generally would be saved hard currency expenditure. But there might equally be an argument, for example, for spending that money to encourage the growing of flax in Ireland as a whole rather than in Northern Ireland.
The difficulty is that we do not know what the producer subsidy is going to cost. All I can say is that, generally speaking—and this is a matter in which I have taken a considerable interest and I asked a Question about it, getting some detailed figures about a year ago in order to be ready for an occasion such as this— it gives the farmers an amount around £5 million in the year, but how much this subsidy would add to that would be determined by the sort of scheme we are to have.
There is a final argument that we could have separate schemes and exclude Northern Ireland from this Bill altogether. If we want to give assistance to Northern Ireland and it is proper that we should do so, then we ought to consider very carefully the terms under which we do it.


It should be remembered that when the Minister introduces his scheme he will have to have somebody to operate it, and the people who will operate it in Northern Ireland will be the officials of the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture. They will undertake this scheme as an agency of this Government, and they will spend the money which we vote here, money which, in fact, has been voted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and which comes out of the pockets of the people of Great Britain.
I do not think we should be stingy about that. If Northern Ireland is in need, we ought to help her, but we cannot get away from the fact that this money will come out of the pockets of the people of Great Britain, and, if that is so, they ought to have some say in how the agency behaves. We have no say at all. If we put down a Question in this House about what is happening under the agency what we are told is that, while every penny of the grant has been voted by the House, it is quite improper to inquire how the money is spent because the agents are the officials of an independent Parliament.
I can give one example which occurred under a parallel scheme to this—the potato scheme. An official employed by the agency alleged that he was dismissed on the ground that he was a Roman Catholic. I do not know whether that was so or not, but a number of people, including Mr. Teevan, who was recently a Member of this House, advised that public servants should be employed on the basis of their religion. On the questionnaire which is sent out to those acting as agents the religion of the applicant is asked for.

The Chairman: I do not think we can go into a discussion of religion.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. This is really a very important argument which affects our relationship with Northern Ireland. It deals with the whole question whether we ought to pass a scheme here and hand it over to be administered in accordance with the rules of the agents and officers of Northern Ireland without our having any further regard to the scheme. I represent a constituency which has one of the largest Roman Catholic populations in Britain, and therefore this

matter is of great importance to my constituents. If we are to allow discrimination to be applied in agricultural matters as well as in religious matters, we might open the door to something very serious.

The Chairman: We ought not to enter into a religious discussion.

Mr. Bing: I do not want to enter into any religious discussion. I can put the matter on any other ground you like. I can put the matter in a very general way and I will not mention religion. It just happens that that is one of the grounds for discrimination. When we have paid money for an inspector, we ought to be able to see that he is not dismissed on grounds of which we would not approve, and we ought to be able to see that this is put right.

The Chairman: We are not voting money for that purpose.

Mr. Bing: Yes, Sir Charles, we are. The scheme will provide for agency payments to the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. That is always the way the thing works.

The Chairman: Surely that is a matter of Supply.

Mr. Bing: No, Sir Charles, not in this case. We cannot have a scheme and cannot administer it unless we accept the agency principle. Therefore, it seems to be undesirable to accept a principle which must involve all that I have been describing. It is only because we pass a Bill in this way that there is authority for this to take place. What you will find, if you have a chance to look at the Estimates, is a gross Imperial contribution. It is a very complicated matter. It is not until you go to the Northern Ireland Accounts that you will find the agency payments which are made on our behalf.
I will leave that aspect of the matter, with which I have dealt for rather too long. It is not only a matter of the terms upon which people will be employed but of the whole conduct of agriculture. It is no use our pouring money into an area over which we have no effective control in regard to general agricultural policy.
The areas most in need of assistance under the scheme are the counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh. [Interruption.]


Possibly in Armagh, too. I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden), who took part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. He is always in his place. Those are the great agricultural areas in Northern Ireland which are liable to be affected. It is no use our giving ploughing grants if there do not exist the other installations to provide for a reasonable and sensible agricultural policy. In some areas, no agricultural cottages have been built since before 1914. The fantastic agricultural policy which is pursued makes it doubtful whether we ought, without further examination, to conclude a scheme under which we are not able to inquire fully.
I hope, therefore, that when the Minister replies he will say that he is going to have a separate scheme for Northern Ireland. If he feels that Northern Ireland ought not to be excluded altogether and that something ought to be done for the agriculture of Northern Ireland, let him consider a separate scheme, and whether it ought to be in the Bill. It is absurd, when we have a Parliament in Northern Ireland charged with dealing with, agriculture, for us to make a scheme without consultation with Northern Ireland and without giving Northern Ireland an opportunity to discuss it. The scheme will come up here subject to an affirmative Resolution, and it will not be discussed by the very Parliament which we have seen fit to entrust with control of agriculture in Northern Ireland.
If the Minister prepares a scheme for Northern Ireland, I hope it will be one which can be discussed by the Northern Ireland Parliament. Why is that Parliament there if it is not able to discuss one of the matters which has been entrusted to it? Secondly, when the scheme comes into effect it will have to take into account the special conditions in Northern Ireland, the first of which is the size of the holdings. The size is entirely different; the whole nature of the holding is different. Another matter is the deficit which exists in the supply of rough feeding materials in Northern Ireland.
The third point we must take into consideration is the whole problem of flax growing. We need a statement on that matter. Is it not our policy to encourage flax growing, and if so, where do we

propose to encourage it? In Northern Ireland? Are we to import it from abroad, or are we to try to grow flax here?

The Chairman: This Amendment is not concerned with flax growing.

Mr. Bing: Yes, Sir Charles. The only domestic flax crop grown for practical purposes is grown in Northern Ireland, and there has been a considerable fall.

Mr. J. B. Godber: The hon. and learned Member should be aware that flax is also grown in my constituency.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Was not my hon. and learned Friend replying to an observation made by you, Sir Charles, and should he be interrupted in this way?

Mr. Bing: Flax is a great industrial crop in Northern Ireland. I am glad that it is also grown in the constituency of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this very important point. There is no mention in the scheme of any industrial crop. Flax is the principal industrial crop grown in Northern Ireland. It is concentrated in a very small area but there is no reason why we should not deal with it in the scheme.
I think I am right in saying that there was a very considerable acreage under flax at the end of the war, when we were successful in securing a very large acreage of flax. There may be a number of technical reasons why it is undesirable to try to build up anything like the same amount of flax-growing as then existed. We ought to hear something about the general flax position.
I am sorry to have detained the Committee for longer than I originally intended, but I have tried to deal as fairly as possible with the position in Northern Ireland. I hope we shall have a comprehensive report from the Minister upon Northern Ireland's agriculture.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: There are two aspects which we have to consider under this Amendment. The first is the broad, financial aspect. When Northern Ireland was given local autonomy a financial


agreement was come to with that country, as is always the case on these occasions. Northern Ireland agreed to pay a contribution towards the Army and Navy which would defend her, towards the National Debt which had been incurred partly on her behalf and towards certain other matters which were referred to as Imperial charges.
Her contribution was to be a percentage worked out upon her taxable capacity which then came to 2½per cent. Since the war the production of England has expanded much more than that of Northern Ireland. Perhaps 2½ per cent, is too high a contribution now but, as things have worked out, not only is Northern Ireland paying today absolutely nothing for being defended, absolutely nothing towards the National Debt, absolutely nothing towards any Imperial defence, but she is actually being subsidised by the English taxpayer.

Mr. J. R. E. Harden: Mr. J. R. E. Harden (Armagh) indicated dissent.

Mr. Paget: I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures. The cost of the food subsidies and of the producer subsidies which we pay out to Northern Ireland exceeds the total contribution which Northern Ireland makes for all these matters. So, although she contributes with one hand, she is taking more with the other and we ought to bear that in mind.
Apart altogether from the general financial question, there is the purely practical problem which comes from the proposition to which the Parliamentary Secretary indicated assent a few minutes ago. It is that, within our agricultural scheme, subsidy is a payment on account for a final product and, within the scheme of the 1945 Act, within the general scheme and principle which is profoundly important to the agricultural industry, subsidy is only justified as a payment on account for a product.
That is quite right and workable and satisfactory as long as eventually we control the product for which we are making a payment on account. That is so as long as the Ministry of Food here is a buyer of the product for which we are paying in the first place. But in Northern Ireland, although we are taking over this aspect of Northern Ireland agriculture,

as well as many other aspects, the Northern Ireland Ministry of Food is quite independent of ours. We have no control——

Captain L. P. S. Orr: It is very different.

Mr. Paget: It is very different indeed. What could be more different? In that case why is there milk rationing here and not milk rationing in Northern Ireland?

Captain Orr: That is a matter which is decided by the Minister of Food.

Mr. Paget: Shall I put it this way: that a different scheme of food control operates in Northern Ireland from that which operates here. Here we have milk rationing; there they do not.

Mr. Frederick Willey: If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to interrupt, may I say that I am surprised that the Government Front Bench do not know what happens in this matter. Somebody ought to intervene to tell my hon. and learned Friend that we have not got milk rationing in this country. This ignorance is appalling.

Mr. Harden: Could I put the hon. and learned Gentleman right? The Divisional Food Officer in Northern Ireland is directly under the Minister of Food here.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful for the various pieces of information from different parts of the Committee. I was speaking on the practical level that anybody in Northern Ireland buys just as much milk, indeed just as much meat, as he wants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not know if there is a nominal ration of meat in Northern Ireland, but it is not a ration which is apparent to anyone going into a butcher's shop in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harden: The meat ration is exactly the same in Northern Ireland as here and it is an untrue accusation to make. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman should try to get away with a remark like that.

Mr. Paget: Since when have butchers in Northern Ireland been interested in a ration book or coupons when people want to buy meat? It may be that there is a rationing system, it may be that many people do not take up their ration, but


let us talk sense here. As a matter of pure practice anybody in Northern Ireland buys just as much meat as he wants.

Mr. Harden: That is not true.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Bowles): I think I understand the point which the hon. and learned Member is making, but he must try not to go into so much detail. He is trying to say that the product should be bought by the Minister of Food.

Mr. Paget: I am only saying that if we are to pay for something by way of payments on account, we ought to have better control of the final product than we have in Northern Ireland. We certainly do not want to make payments on account in respect of milk which is used for manufacturing purposes, and that appears to be the case in Northern Ireland. That is the first point.
The second difficulty arises from the division of Northern Ireland from Southern Ireland with an open border between the two, across which cattle pass as is convenient to the farmers concerned. As a matter of practice, therefore, one has to take that Northern Ireland frontier as an open frontier so far as the transfer of goods is concerned.

Mr. Hale: I can tell my hon. and learned Friend, as I have had to cross over the frontier seven or eight times, that they put something across the road in the daytime but that they remove it at night.

Mr. Paget: I am all for taking away these barriers and I wish they were taken away in the daytime as well as at night. In practice, there is no considerable inconvenience as I remember. When we tried to put a tax on horses from Southern Ireland the transfers across the border made it absolutely unworkable.
While we pay for farming by a final price, it works out, in practice, that the price we pay for the cattle from Northern Ireland is higher than the price paid to a farmer in Southern Ireland. I believe that is still so by a very small percentage. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) can confirm that point?

Mr. F. Willey: Try the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Paget: These Ministry of Food figures are extremely difficult for the back bench Member to cover, but I think that a short time ago the figure we paid for Northern Irish cattle was rather higher than for the Southern Irish cattle. Perhaps we shall be told whether that is true today?
But, since an ever higher percentage of the value of cattle is being paid for by subsidy, the position will be reached where we pay for the whole of the cow by a final price in Southern Ireland whereas in Northern Ireland—if this subsidy system goes on—we shall be paying for about one-third of the cow in subsidy and two-thirds in price.
So a position will be reached in which the Southern Irish price, which is the price for the whole cow, must become higher than the Northern Irish price, which is a price for two-thirds of the cow, so far as the final product is concerned. I believe that in that event Northern Irish cows will take a stroll southwards so that they get paid for once by subsidy in Northern Ireland and a second time by price in Southern Ireland. It is a manoeuvre which is at least to be expected.
The Minister may very well say, "Why pick on me? This subsidy for Northern Ireland was instituted by your party." Indeed, it was instituted during the war. but we began to subsidise Northern Irish agriculture. The point is that one has to look at it somehow and to see when the point is reached that it ought to stop. I venture to say that we have reached that point now.
We ought to treat Southern Ireland as one unit, deal with their Ministry of Agriculture, and give them, under the bulk buying arrangements which we operate, a price for their cattle which would call for the production which we want of Southern Irish cattle. Make a similar bargain with the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, give them a price which would call for the production which they want, and let the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland use part of that price for a subsidy system if he wants to call for a special production in any direction. But let us treat those two as a unit. Do it through Southern Ireland, do it through Northern Ireland, and stop the rather slovenly system which has grown upon


us of getting these two problems mixed up together.
As subsidy is playing an ever larger part in the price, it becomes more and more difficult to support it. We should reach the point of saying that we have got to deal with these two things separately, realising that the Northern Ireland problem is different to the British problem; that they should be provided with a price, and that the Ministerial angle should be the Northern Ireland Ministry and not the British Ministry. I should like to see it worked on those lines.

Mr. Harden: I cannot agree with much of what has been said by the hon. and learned Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and Northampton (Mr. Paget). The hon. and learned Member for Horn-church has made his usual scurrilous attack on Ulster—I did not expect anything else—in which he got down to suggesting that somebody had not got a certain appointment because of his religion. That would have been far better left out, and I say once again——

Mr. Bing: Mr. Bing rose——

Mr. Harden: Let me say this—that if there are any small pieces of discrimination, they are dying far quicker than I hoped they would. Such remarks and such things from——

Mr. Edward Evans: On a point of order. Is the word "scurrilous," when applied to an hon. Member, a proper Parliamentary expression?

The Temporary Chairman: When it is applied not to a Member, but to an expression, I think it is all right.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Harden: Such remarks as have been made by the hon. and learned Member can only do more harm to the problem, as I have said before. In my constituency——

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. Member made a remark, in passing, which I hope he does not mean. He said that the hard feelings were dying out quicker than he hoped. That was the meaning he conveyed, but I do not think he meant it.

Mr. Harden: I withdraw what I said. What I meant is that I should like them not to be there at all. They are disappearing, and I assure the hon. and learned Member that they are disappearing quickly. I hope that they will continue in that way.
As regards the economic position and as to whether Northern Ireland is in credit, I do not have the figures before me but I am given to understand that Northern Ireland is in credit. I stand to be corrected, however, and I do not pretend to be an economist.

Mr. Bing: I can give the hon. Member the figures, which will settle the argument once and for all. The figures that Northern Ireland receives are: £3,600,000 under the Social Services Agreement Act, £92,000 under the training and rehabilitation schemes, £563,000 under the agency and administrative costs services, £13,890,000 under the food services, £5,330,000 under the producer subsidies, £651,000 for land annuities, and there are various tax refunds, making a gross total for 1950 of £20,752,000, to which must be added the £3,600,000.

Mr. Harden: I would not for a moment accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's figures without substantial confirmation of them from other authorities.
One of the hon. and learned Members has said that there were no agricultural cottages built since 1914. That is not true. I can quote offhand at least 25 instances where I know that they have been built. That would not, however, be a fair argument.
Next, one of the hon. and learned Members stated that we in Northern Ireland supply nothing to the defence of the United Kingdom. I do not know that that is quite fair. We all pay the same taxes, whether in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, and we supply our men for the Armed Forces, all of whom are volunteers. After the record of an Ulster regiment which has been in Korea and has served with great distinction, it would not be fair to say that we have not played our part in the defence of the United Kingdom.
During the late war, Ulster did not desert this country, and never will do in the future. Had we done so, it might not have ended up in as happy a position.

Mr. Paget: My remarks were confined, of course, entirely to finance; on any other basis they would have been irrelevant.
The sole point is that under the original Act of 1920, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland agreed to make certain contributions of cash to Imperial defence. In point of fact, on the balance of the contributions of which my hon. and learned Friend has given the figures, it is now a minus quantity; but in manpower and gallantry, of course, Northern Ireland did things that we all admire and for which we are all grateful.

Mr. Harden: The last point to be raised was that we are manufacturing milk in Northern Ireland but that we should not get the same price structure. In fact, last year some 30,000 gallons were put into condensed milk, all of which came to this country. The position is that we are over-producing as regards our own consumption of milk and we are sending it to this country, some in manufactured form, and when it is wanted in liquid form it is sent here to help when supplies are short.
I do not think that is an unsatisfactory position because in the type of holding we have in Northern Ireland it is financially sound to produce a small amount of milk in accordance with the size of holding. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch was wrong when he said that the average farm was 59 acres. I think it is much bigger and that the average is more nearly 40 acres. I have heard it put even lower.
We are producing milk and it is coming to this country. If it is not wanted in liquid form it is coming as condensed milk. Some of it is going into a cheese factory which is expanding and it is not only being used for a type of chocolate biscuit but also for what I call "mousetrap cheese," to try to increase the cheese ration which now has reached its lowest ever. Whether the small contribution will make any significant difference, I do not know.
Northern Ireland farmers welcome the £5 ploughing-up grant and the Committee may be sure that they will play their part in ploughing up their quantity of grassland. I hope that the Committee will support my right hon. Friend if we have to divide on this question.
It seems curious that hon. Members opposite never raised this question when they were in power. We had ploughing-up grants then and they went through without any trouble. I can only imagine that the reason they are now moving the Amendment is to try to unite themselves, but I hope that the Northern Ireland Labour Party will note very carefully the hostile attitude of hon. Members opposite when the next General Election comes.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We have great respect for the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) and I think that when he reads his speech he will be rather sorry for the remarks with which he began and ended it. I listened to the speeches of my hon. and learned Friends and from what I heard there was no attack either on the Ulster Government or on the people of Ulster. I cannot deal with the many difficult and complicated questions they raised, but I shall have pleasure in reading them in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.
I wish to emphasise two points which have come out of the contributions supporting the Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) said something which I thought most disturbing. It not only disturbed me that the Front Bench did not know that we have not milk rationing in this country. That is disturbing enough, but we have not to expect too high standards from the Government Front Bench. I am much obliged for their summoning of the Minister of Food because we may later require his assistance.
What my hon. and learned Friend said was not that we were getting milk in this country in the form of condensed milk, but in the form of buttons. If they are soluble, it is a development which may be of some importance and which may save transport costs and the like. But I understood him to mean ordinary buttons. Is it a fact that we are supporting milk production in Northern Ireland and they are making buttons from some of it?
I hope that the Minister of Food will be able to tell us what is happening to milk in this country. Are we making it into buttons also? I have been complaining for the past few months that the consumption of fresh milk has been falling and I am sure that this is disturbing the Ministry of Food. We are very concerned about the nutritive value of milk for our


people. Earlier today we were discussing, in answer to Questions, the difficulties we may be facing in the autumn. It is in the autumn that we import milk from Northern Ireland. What a shock it will be if, instead of milk, we are presented with buttons.

Mr. Robert Crouch: The hon. Member has made suggestions about the manufacture of buttons, but when I was a boy at school I understood that they were manufactured from milk.

Mr. Willey: I have a great respect for the hon. Member, but he should have heard the speech of his hon. Friend before he intervened. It was not his hon. Friend who referred to buttons, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church.
The hon. Friend of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) said what I hope is nearer the truth, that we get the milk in the form of condensed milk. About that I would be less disturbed, but I know from experience that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church is better informed about Northern Ireland than some of the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland in this House. I have not the slightest doubt that the information my hon. and learned Friend has given the Committee will be found to be the fact. As we subsidise agriculture in Northern Ireland this is a matter into which we must look at once.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I do not dispute the suggestion of the hon. Member, but is it not true that milk was made into buttons under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Willey: That is a matter of which I am not cognisant. What I am cognisant of is that the Minister has told the House that we are on a one ounce cheese ration and that he does not think he can maintain it for the rest of the year. If, in those circumstances, we are using milk which might make cheese for making buttons, we shall be very disturbed and so also will the housewives of this country and of Northern Ireland.
Another point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is a question of real substance. He dealt with the question of producer subsidies. We all know

that we have had a change of policy and for the moment I am not criticising that change of policy. The producer subsidies, until a few months ago, were being eliminated. But in the new agricultural policy an emphasis has been laid upon producer subsidies. For instance, we were going to eliminate even the feeding-stuffs subsidy but, instead of elimination of that subsidy, the farmers in the next 12 months will receive £30 million over and above that given by the Farm Price Review in this form.
When we consider the question of Northern Ireland in relation to the producer subsidies we see that a substantial point has been raised. It is something upon which we are entitled to a reply from the Government Front Bench. Have they carefully considered and reviewed the effect of the new approach to farm prices through additional emphasis on producer subsidies in relation to Northern Ireland agriculture? I am not expressing a view about this. This might not be sufficient or it might be too much, but we should be informed and have the figures so that we could understand whether this is fair to Northern Ireland.
I am sorry that he is not in his place, but I remember one of the hon. Members for Belfast raising this matter in the House when I was answering a Prayer. In reply, I then said how difficult it was, although we agree that there are differences, to distinguish Northern Irish agriculture from our own, because there are differences in British agriculture between England, Scotland and Wales. It is very difficult to provide for that.
5.30 p.m.
I should like to know whether the Minister has thought about this problem, as there is now this increasing emphasis on the producer subsidy, and I hope that he will at any rate take this occasion to explain his point of view on the effect of the producer subsidy on the Irish farmer, whether he feels that this is right, whether the farmer in Northern Ireland is being assisted over much, or whether on reflection, after reviewing the matter and this emphasis upon the producer subsidy, he feels that by this reversion to the producer subsidy the Northern Irish farmer may not be receiving an adequate incentive.
I do not know which view to take until we hear the facts upon which the Minister


bases his policy. This would be an opportune moment for him to be frank with us and to tell us how he thinks this reversion to producer subsidy will affect agricultural policy in Northern Ireland.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), blazing the trail for Northern Ireland as usual, said that we had no control over the administration of the potato guarantees in Northern Ireland. I hope I may be excused for raising this matter, because as a farmer in Eire as well as in the Isle of Ely, which is particularly affected, I do not think I could possibly be accused of having a vested interest in Northern Ireland.
The Government here have considerable power over the disposal of the potato crop in Northern Ireland, this year particularly. If Her Majesty's Government had not taken considerable action in delaying the disposal of the English crop in order to help the disposal of the Northern Ireland crop, Northern Ireland would have suffered very grievously. I do not know what motive the hon. and learned Member has, and he may have given a false impression, but I should like to make it clear that my own constituency has suffered very heavily as a result of this clamping down of the movement of the English home crop to allow the Northern Ireland crop to be disposed of in England and Wales.

Mr. Hale: I attend the House fairly regularly, but I cannot remember any announcement having been made about this matter. Have we been informed of this, or is this private information which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now communicating to us?

Major Legge-Bourke: It has been mentioned in the House. I think every potato grower in the country knows it; every official in the Ministry of Food knows it; and certainly the reason given to me when I have endeavoured to get the main potato crop from the Isle of Ely moved is that the Northern Ireland crop must be disposed of because it is such a bumper one.

Mr. Bing: I am very sorry if I gave a wrong impression to the Committee. The point I was making was not that we had not from the House of Commons complete control of the disposal, marketing and everything else of the Northern

Ireland crop, but that the conduct of officials in charge of the job who are paid out of the funds we provide was not amenable to discussion in the House. That was my only point, and I am sorry if I gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman a wrong impression. I am very glad he has taken the opportunity of pointing it out.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. and learned Gentleman does his best on every possible occasion to make up any deficiency in the discussion of Northern Ireland.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made a proposal which does not seem to me to have great relevance to the Amendment, but as I have a vested interest in it I am quite prepared to debate it, because I am a breeder of fat cattle in Southern Ireland. He suggested that Southern Ireland, and Northern Ireland should be included in the same economy with ourselves; that the three should work as one in food production.

Mr. Paget: I must have been very obscure in what I said. I said that we ought to treat Northern Ireland as a separate entity, in the same way as we treat Southern Ireland as a separate entity. I did not say that we should treat them as being the same thing.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to him for clearing that up. From what he said I thought he was arguing that they should be treated in a similar manner. I do not believe that would be very conducive to bring about a solution of the eternal problem affecting any discussion of the Irish question. If such a suggestion is to be made, it would come much better from Southern Ireland.
There is a precedent for the Bill as drafted, and there is no need for the Committee to accept this Amendment. We have shown that there is a close tie up between Northern Ireland agriculture and Welsh and English agriculture, and merely because this is a ploughing grant Bill it would be wrong to exclude Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) said, there has been ample demonstration that Northern Ireland and Great Britain are irrevocably linked, and there is no ground for saying that Northern Ireland is endeavouring to make something out


of us without giving anything in return. That is a very wrong suggestion to make, and I am sorry it has been made. Although I say this at great peril to myself, as I go over to Southern Ireland quite often, the allegations made against Northern Ireland this afternoon are quite unjustified, and I hope that the Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is addressing his last remark to me, would he say what allegations he means?

Major Legge-Bourke: I have not been a Member of the House for six years without knowing the background against which the hon. and learned Member makes all his speeches affecting Northern Ireland. I may be wrong, but my impression is that when he speaks on Northern Ireland he is doing his best to make as much bad blood as he can between Northern Ireland and this country.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. and learned Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and Northampton (Mr. Paget) have argued that there should be a separate provision for Northern Ireland, and during the discussion doubt has been expressed about the financial account between Her Majesty's Government here and the Government of Northern Ireland. On this narrow point on a ploughing subsidy Bill I shall not stray into the realms of cattle, even after the invitation offered.
To pursue the point I was making, the broad point which requires answering is whether or no there should be a separate scheme. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman felt concerned about this. I noted that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) in his intervention, which, I thought, started on a tone rather lower than his usual courtesy——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. F. Willey: May I point out that I began by saying I had great respect for the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden)?

Mr. Nugent: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but what he said, and I took it down at the time, was that we should not

expect too high a standard from the Government Front Bench, and it seemed to me rather unnecessary in the circumstances.
I was following the principle of not interrupting hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I felt fairly sure that given time they would probably inform each other of what were the merits of this particular case. If I may refer them to some of the things which have gone before when they formed the Government, the Committee will see that there was some reason for what I said. I assume that this matter was discussed before on the 1946 Bill and that there was no doubt a meeting of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the sort of discussion which has gone on this afternoon probably took place then.

Mr. G. Brown: A meeting upstairs?

Mr. Nugent: I do not know what goes on upstairs. In any event, their spokesman, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who was then Minister of Agriculture said:
…and I am happy to be able to inform him"—
that was to inform an hon. Member opposite—
that the one part of the British Isles which will benefit very materially under the terms of this Bill will be Northern Ireland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2324.]
He was replying to Major Haughton, who was the Member for Antrim at that time, and was making specifically the point that the Bill did provide for Northern Ireland, and that he, the right hon. Gentleman, was glad to find that it did.
I make that point because I feel that it is a fair one to make and that whatever the concern of the hon. and learned Gentleman may be today he was, in fact, present on that day and did vote for that Bill; as was his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Whatever may be their concern today it evidently was not as great then as they were able to support a Bill of their own in 1946 which' did specifically include Northern Ireland for a ploughing subsidy.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Member add, this, so that the picture may be complete? In 1946 the Northern Ireland account was nearly £20 million in credit. Now, when we are giving them this extra


subsidy, it is £4 million in debit, before there is any account taken of the Imperial contribution. So the position is entirely different.

Mr. Nugent: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on his riposte. I think it fair to say to him that if the account was becoming so serious it is a matter of comment that he took no action when the last Government was in office to see that the matter was rectified.

Mr, Frederick Elwyn Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate how it was there was a Division before on this matter, and if there was a Division how many of his right hon. and hon. Friends took the view they appear to take today?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Gentleman is off the target. Before he makes an intervention he would be wise to read HANSARD. I was not in the House at the time. The Division was not on this point at all. It was on the point about what date the ploughing subsidy should run, so that the issue was quite irrelevant to this matter.
This has been the general practice carried on by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Normally, Northern Ireland is included in such schemes as this, and in calf subsidy schemes, and fertiliser subsidy schemes. In fact, it has been the general practice. There are, however, one or two specific points with which I wish to deal. The first is that the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the scheme for a ploughing subsidy was part of the Price Review settlement in which Northern Ireland farmers are included as well as farmers in this country. If they are not now included they would have serious ground for complaint that they were not getting the complete settlement which they had agreed to accept.
The specific reason for including them in this scheme and for not having a separate scheme for them is that the ploughing-up subsidy is as much necessary in Northern Ireland as in England. The tillage acreage has gone back there; indeed there has been a very excellent response to the subsidy in increased tillage acreage in the last few months. I am advised the applications amount to something around the 150,000 acre figure, which is extremely satisfactory in the

prospect of bringing us extra crops for the future. Had the Northern Ireland Government wished to have a separate scheme, of course they would have had one. But they considered that the scheme we were proposing to adopt here was what they wanted and, therefore, they agreed to have the same scheme. If I could make the point to the hon. and learned Gentleman in case he is sceptical on this, in the fertiliser scheme now in the Vote Office they have a separate scheme, because their conditions vary slightly.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why flax has not been included as one of the approved crops, and why the special position in Northern Ireland has not been recognised.

The Temporary Chairman: I was not in the Chair at the time, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman pressed that point rather much. I think that flax is outside the Bill.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, this is a Bill to authorise schemes. It is perfectly true that flax is outside the scheme which has been made. But if any scheme were to be made for Northern Ireland it is a scheme which would be authorised by this Bill, and in our view it would certainly have to deal particularly with flax. Therefore, with respect, when the Minister is asked, "What are you going to do about flax? Are you going to have a scheme under this Bill for flax?" that is a Northern Ireland question. It does extend to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hale: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who made a speech on this matter —with almost every word of which I am in complete disagreement, and I hope that I may catch your eye, Mr. Bowles—did make a fair point there.
The Minister of Agriculture announced this grant on 4th February and on Second Reading emphasised, as a reason for the ploughing-up grants, the policy position, and the necessity for encouraging the growth in the home area of a number of things, including the provision of feedingstuffs, which are at the moment the subject of the dollar deficit.
My hon. and learned Friend gave figures on the importation of flax into


Northern Ireland and of the dollar deficit. He raised what appeared to me to be a most important matter. I am against him and I hope that flax will not be included, but I suggest that it is most relevant. I do not think that it was pursued at great length. The important question which we must consider in this half-starved country is whether to encourage the growth of food or to encourage the growth of things required for trade at the expense of food.

The Temporary Chairman: I appreciate all that, but this Bill refers to grass and grazing. However desirable flax may be, I do not think——

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I will listen to another submission when I have made my statement. The Bill refers to grass and grazing. It does not, and could not possibly, include a subsidy on the growing of flax.

Mr. G. Brown: In Clause 1 (1) the Bill refers to the ploughing up of land under grass and the carrying out of further operations. Until now, we have all understood that that involved the question of the cropping of the land following the ploughing up. It seems to me that it must be competent to submit that one crop, as well as certain other crops, should be a following operation for the purpose of this Bill.
If flax is of importance to Northern Ireland, then clearly, in discussing the applicability of a scheme to Northern Ireland, it would seem that one ought to be as free to discuss the further operations referred to in this Bill, for example, the sowing of flax, as one is free to discuss the cropping of potatoes or the sowing of corn in this country. I submit that if in fact that is not your ruling, and that is not allowed, we shall be debarred from discussing an important phrase in the Bill itself.

Mr. Bing: I do not know whether it would help you, Mr. Bowles, if I called your attention to what was said by the Minister on the Second Reading of this Bill. Describing the purpose of the Bill he said:
The land had to be ploughed up and sown at once with approved crops. The list of

approved crops included not only grains, but potatoes, linseed, peas, beans, fodder, beet and certain other fodder crops."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 421.]
I conceive that the object of the Bill is to provide (a)for the ploughing up and (b)for the insertion of certain crops, and that the schemes will provide not only for the land to be ploughed up but for what are to be the crops to be sown on the grassland once it has been ploughed. The argument with regard to flax was raised because I felt that in Northern Ireland there should be provision for growing flax while that might not be necessary in regard to England. That was an argument in favour of having two schemes instead of one.

The Temporary Chairman: Does the word "agriculture" cover flax?

Mr. Bing: Yes.

The Temporary Chairman: I was under the impression that all the various products which the hon. Gentleman read out are edible products, either by cattle or by human beings. If I am wrong, I will consider the matter again. Perhaps the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will make another submission.

Mr. Hale: We are in the difficulty that part of the product of flax is included and part is not. I suggest that it would come under either head, because linseed would come in as a direct product, but that part used for the very important linen industry of Northern Ireland, which no one wants to injure, would not. This is a most important point about how far the grant will apply to one part of a crop of flax and not the other.

The Temporary Chairman: I may have been wrong. I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the matter.

Mr. Nugent: I have only a brief comment to make on this position. There is a very fine point in the question of the relationship between linseed and flax. The flax production in Northern Ireland is geared to factory capacity. Without enlarging their factory capacity they would be unable to deal with substantially increased quantities of flax. It is for that reason that flax has not been included as one of the approved crops.
On the question of milk exports to England, and the general contribution which Northern Ireland makes to this


country, I should make it plain that Northern Ireland agriculture makes a substantial contribution, especially in milk. I have no evidence that this milk is not used for human consumption here. If hon. Gentlemen opposite have evidence that it has been manufactured into buttons, I will be glad to have it and I will look into the matter. Useful as they are, especially in certain places, nevertheless we may need the milk for other purposes. Milk comes here in large quantities and it makes a substantial contribution to our larder. So do a number of other products such as eggs and bacon.
Although the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is important, I emphasise that this has been the general practice. It is one to which he and his hon. and right hon. Friends have agreed before and, in this context, it is sound and practical to have this subsidy. It will help to get the extra increase which is required to grow the extra crops which we badly need. For that reason, I hope that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends will withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. G. Brown: I find that in some parts of the argument the reply of the hon. Gentleman was a little disappointing. On the question of the provision that a scheme may be separate or joint, I can well understand him meeting the arguments advanced by saying that this is a common form of words. But he has told us that the fertiliser subsidy was administered under separate schemes. He said that agricultural conditions in Northern Ireland were different from agricultural conditions here, and a separate scheme was required. I should have thought that that gave away a good deal of the argument. If conditions differed for the application of that subsidy, they certainly differ for the application of this one. I should have thought that he might have met the argument by indicating that it was likely that there would be a separate scheme.
The hon. Gentleman gracefully dodged another part of the argument. I refer to the question of what happens to the food products, the meat as well as the milk, that is secured as a result of this subsidy. Inquiries I have made in Eire and Northern Ireland since this Bill was placed before us lead me to suspect that we are subsidising the production of food in Northern Ireland in the same way as

we are in this country, but whereas here we are getting the results of it in the form of more milk or meat, we are getting rather less than that from Northern Ireland.
I am told that since Eire has been finding it possible to sell her meat in other markets at higher prices than our Minister of Food is willing to pay, not only has a good deal of fat cattle from Eire gone elsewhere than to this country but a decided pull has been made on cattle from Northern Ireland. When the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) spoke of his interests as a breeder in Eire, I wondered where his cattle went.

Major Legge-Bourke: They come here.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Brown: Nobody is making any allegations, scurrilous or otherwise, and that is obviously the effect of a free market. If the price goes up in one place, the raw materials tend to go there.
We have not got the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland here, and I think it is a great pity. In a two-hour debate on a very important matter, the Minister responsible in this House, who has rather more Under-Secretaries than the normal, is not here himself, nor is an Under-Secretary here at all.

Colonel Clarke: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I believe that one of the reasons there may be a diminution in the number of fat cattle from Ireland is that we are not sending them enough coal. When I was over in Eire, the farmers told me that they believed that, unless we sent them more coal, they would not be able to send us the meat which they had done in the past.

Mr. Brown: I can well understand that in regard to Eire, but there is no subsidy proposal for Eire. Not only is that happening, but it is also drawing the cattle in Northern Ireland and I am sure that, if the Minister asked the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, he would get very much the same detailed information as I have got.
In fact, we are going out of our way to give to the Northern Ireland farming community subsidies of a kind which I dislike intensely. I dislike this particular way of paying for the products even here, where we have a degree of control, but


here we are going out of our way to give the subsidy to Northern Ireland, where we have not got any control. Cattle can go across the border, where they may be sold away from us, and why should we deliberately subsidise and encourage the production of cattle for Belgium, continental countries, and America, so that the American Army somewhere can have more meat? It is a little absurd.

Mr. Harden: The right hon. Gentleman asked me for the production figures from Northern Ireland into Eire. I received them only last week, and, if it would help the right hon. Gentleman at all, I can tell him that the number of cattle exported from Northern Ireland to Eire— unfortunately, up-to-date figures are not given—in 1950 was 329; in 1949, 348; and, to go back as far as 1939, it was 2,833. It would therefore appear as if there is a decrease in the number of cattle going southwards, and, although I quite appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman is putting and that the matter needs to be carefully watched by the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, I do not believe that there is any reason for alarm and despondency yet.

Mr. Brown: I hope we shall get some figures from the Minister concerning the number of cattle in Northern Ireland. We have had one explanation from the hon. and gallant Member for East Grin-stead (Colonel Clarke) and another from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) on the trend in regard to cattle coming here, but if we could have some figures from the Minister, we might find out whether it is the right trend or not, and I doubt whether it is.
Frankly, I do not think the Government have met the important argument that we are paying out a debateable subsidy to a community in which we have less control than anywhere else, and where we cannot be sure that the resultant food production is coming to us, anyway. I should have thought that, if the Minister hopes to make progress with this part of the Bill, he would give us such information as he has, and also tell us what control we shall have over the resultant production. In the meantime, he should tell us whether there is to be a joint scheme, a separate scheme or no scheme at all.

Mr. Nugent: If I may reply briefly to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the fertiliser scheme, I did not go into the details about the different arrangements, but it is a different set-up with the distributors and manufacturers, and it makes it more convenient to pay the subsidy at the manufacturer point rather than at the farming point. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that matter has considerable advantages.
On the second point, I have some figures here which may be what the right hon. Gentleman requires concerning the numbers of cattle coming into this country, and they are quite substantial. Last year, just under 250,000 head of cattle came here from Northern Ireland, and, setting that figure against the total head of cattle in the country of 931,000, which includes dairy cattle and all the young cattle, it is evident that we are getting a fair proportion of what they are growing. The figures of other cattle run to only a little over 200,000, but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that 200,000 of those are adult dairy cattle producing milk, and that there are all their followers to come along as well. From this, it is quite evident that we are getting a very large proportion of their exportable surplus of fat cattle.
While I accept the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman that money paid out in this way should not fail to benefit those who have to pay it, I am sure that he would not wish to imply that he believes that what he has said is, in fact, happening, but that he simply wants to make sure that it does not happen. I can assure him that we will do all that we can, and will seek an assurance from the Northern Ireland Government that there is no such leakage.
I will not proceed to give the complete list of foods sent to this country, but they amount to £26 million worth a year, and it is quite evident that Northern Ireland is making a very substantial contribution to this country. I hope that these figures will reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, in fact, his worst fears are not substantiated.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Mr. Hale.

Mr. Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 141.

Division No. 163.]
AYES
[6.10 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Godber, J. B.
Partridge, E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Peyton, J. W. W.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gough, C. F. H.
Pickthorn, K. W M


Anstruther-Gray, Major W J
Gower, H. R.
Pitman, I. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Powell, J. Enoch


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Harden, J. R. E.
Prior-Palmer, Brig 0. L


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Redmayne, E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Baldwin, A E.
Heath, Edward
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Banks, Col. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Robertson, Sir David


Barber, A. P. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Baxter, A. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Roper, Sir Harold


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Holt, A. F.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Hope, Lord John
Russell, R. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Birch, Nigel
Horobin, I. M.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Bishop, F. P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)


Black, C. W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Scott, R. Donald


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hurd, A. R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Braine, B. R.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Soames, Capt. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Spearman, A. C M


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Speir, R. M.


Bullard, D. G.
Lambert, Hon. G
Spence, H, R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Carson, Hon. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Stewart, Henderson, (Fife, E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Linstead, H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Channon, H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Cole, Norman
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Summers, G S.


Colegate, W. A.
Luoas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir 'Hugh
Teeling, W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Crouch, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Deedes, W F.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Digby, S. Wingfield
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Turner, H. F. L.


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Turton, R. H


Doughty, C. J. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, G.
Marples, A. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Vosper, D. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Maydon, Lt. Comdr. S. L. C
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E
Mellor, Sir John
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fell, A.
Molson, A. H. E,
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Finlay, Graeme
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Fletcher-Cooke, C
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Watkinson, H. A


Fort, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wellwood, W.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Gage, C. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.



Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garner-Evans, E. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bowden, H. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Coldrick, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brookway, A. F.
Collick, P. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Brook, Drydsn (Halifax)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Ayles, W. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Bence, C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Benn, Wedgwood
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)


Beswick, F.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bing, G. H. C
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Deer, G.


Blackburn, F.
Callaghan, L. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C


Blyton, W. R.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Follick, M




Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Ross, William


Forman, J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.
Snow, J. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mellish, R J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Monslow, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon J


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E-


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Swingler, S. T.


Harman, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hargreaves, A
Oswald, T.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
Thomeycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Holman, P.
Paget, R. T
Viant, S. P.


Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wallace, H. W.


Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pannell, Charles
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
West, D. G.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, T. F.
Wigg, George


Janner, B.
Poole, C. C.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Jeger, Dr Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Porter, G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Proctor, W. T.
Winter-bottom, Richard (Brightside)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reeves, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)



Kinley, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Royle.


Question put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hale: May I seek your guidance on a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris? It is a point which has been raised before, and one which I want to put to you with every possible courtesy and respect. You had called upon me to address the Committee when the Whip, who had not been present and heard the discussion and, therefore, had no means of judging how far the discussion had gone, rose and moved the Closure. There are two points which arise and which I think should be put. In the course of the debate on the Motion of censure on the Chair put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) ——

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept any point of order. The vote has been taken and that matter is now finished.

Mr. Hale: I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Hopkin Morris. We have always been told that a Member can seek the guidance of the Chair as to what steps he can take to safeguard his reputation when it is reported in HANSARD that he has been called upon to address the Committee and then suddenly he is deprived of speaking through the action of the Whip moving the Closure. Is there no way in which I can make it clear to my constituency what happened?

The Deputy-Chairman: The moving of the Closure does, of course, deprive an hon. Member of the opportunity of speaking, but there is no reflection at all on his reputation, and I cannot allow this discussion to go on, because it is completely out of order.

Mr. Hale: May I suggest a remedy. Mr. Hopkin Morris, which is that if the Whips want to move the Closure they should do so before the Chair calls upon somebody to speak?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order for the hon. Member to make his comments at this stage.

Mr. Hale: May I now raise a separate point of order which does not arise out of the Closure at all? In the discussion which has just terminated, a considerable amount of comment took place concerning the absence of the Home Secretary who is, of course, the Minister for Northern Ireland, and as I apprehend that we may wish to raise the matter again, could not some measure be taken to ask the Home Secretary to be here?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now raising a point which is not a matter for me at all.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

The Deputy-Chairman: I think, perhaps, that this and the next Amendment might be discussed together.

Mr. Fraser: If it is the wish of all concerned, I could take this Amendment together with the next one, though they raise two different points. I understood from the Minister himself that he, too, is anxious that they should be taken separately.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): Perhaps I should add here that it would be more convenient for the Government if these two Amendments were taken separately. The second one deals with a rather different point.

Mr. Fraser: If I may, I will read the provision in this Clause which we are seeking to amend. Clause 1 (3) states:
A scheme under this Act—…
(b)may provide for defining or limiting the kinds of land under grass in respect of which the grants are to be made,…
It seems to me that if this provision is to be permitted it really ought not to have been inserted in Clause 1 of the Bill; but it might have been inserted in Clause 3 which deals with supplementary provisions as to schemes.
A scheme must do three things. It must specify the rates of grants, it must provide for denning or limiting the kinds of land which benefit under the Measure, and it must provide that land which is to benefit must have been under grass for a minimum period of time. It is because these things are bound to be provided for in this scheme that they are dealt with in Clause 1 and not in Clause 3, which deals with supplementary provisions.
The Minister may feel that it is not easy, and perhaps he would argue that it is impossible, to accept this Amendment for the purpose of his first scheme because he intimated to the industry, to the House and to the country, on 4th February, that a ploughing subsidy of £5 per acre would be paid in respect of grass of four years or more to be ploughed down before the end of May this year. He might say, therefore, that the first scheme could not be provided for in any limitation on the kinds of land under grass in respect of which the grants are to be made.
However, I should have thought that, even though he accepted our Amendment, the scheme could provide for defining or limiting. I call attention to that little word "or." It still remains and we are not seeking to make it "and." I submit that the Minister could provide for making this grant available in respect of land under grass more than four years old that was ploughed down within the specified period.
What is important, and the reason we want this Amendment made, is that the Minister himself told us during the Second Reading that it might be desirable to provide for different kinds of grants in respect of different kinds of land under grass. I should have thought that that went without saying. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have expressed appreciation of the fact that in some parts of the country it would be very bad husbandry to plough down four-year-old grass.
Hon. Members will appreciate that in some parts of the country it would be very bad husbandry to keep land under grass for as long as four years. It seems to me, as we look beyond the first scheme to be made under this Measure, that the Minister really must be obliged to consider how the scheme to be made will apply to grass on different kinds of land in different parts of the country.
In this Amendment we are merely saying that the scheme shall provide for defining or limiting the kinds of land under grass. I might refer to one sentence the Minister spoke during the Second Reading of this Bill. He said:
It will be possible, for instance, if it is desired and approved by the House, for one scheme to provide for different rates of grant for different types and kinds of grassland."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 422.]
He might say now that it will still be possible, if this scheme so provides, for the House of Commons to discuss it. But if the Amendment is not accepted and the Minister does not put any provision in the scheme defining or limiting the kind of land, we shall not be able to discuss any limitation or definition of land when the scheme comes before the House; because then we shall only be enabled in this Chamber to discuss that which is contained within the scheme. Therefore, we are seeking to ensure that the scheme shall provide a definition or.


if the Minister thinks fit, a limitation of the kind of land under grass in respect of which grants will be made under the scheme. I hope the Minister will be able to meet us on this point.
I might say, in passing, that the Minister himself, when he returns to the benches on this side of the Committee, will perhaps take comfort from the fact that when he was Minister of Agriculture for a short period he accepted this small Amendment to the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill.

Mr. Paget: I wonder whether the Minister, when he comes to reply, could tell the Committee what limitation or definition of land under grass to which a subsidy is to be applied, other than the length of time for which it has been down, he has in mind?

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth): I should like to comment on this Amendment from a different angle. Just as I distrust a bi-partisan foreign policy, so I am beginning to distrust more and more the bi-partisan approach to agriculture of which I see evidence in this Committee. I always exculpate my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), but when I heard the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and by the present Minister of Agriculture last Thursday, they reminded me very strongly of the fight I saw the other night between Mr. Cockell and Mr. Turpin.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment is to substitute "shall" for "may."

Mr. Snow: I am coming to that point. In the fifth or sixth round the boxers had to be stopped and told not to be so polite to each other. I feel that on this Amendment there is a great deal that could be said about the position and responsibility of county agricultural executive committees. They play a very important part in this matter. The Minister knows that recently I put a series of Questions to him to ascertain what the position was about certain agricultural land in my constituency which seemed to me, not only from representations I had received but from my own observation, to be very badly farmed indeed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman refused that information for the reason that——

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know how the hon. Member is going to relate his present argument to this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Snow: If you could possibly be a little patient, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I will come to my point very quickly indeed. I was saying that in these questions that I had put I had tried to extract information from the Minister about certain land in my constituency which seemed to me to be badly farmed, and the Minister declined to give me the information. The responsibility of the county committees in this matter and in the schemes which will be provided under the Bill will be important, to the extent that they will be the supervisory bodies.
We must impose on the committees an obligation to see that the definitions are provided under these schemes, and the matter should not be made permissive. This Amendment will make it obligatory for a definition or a limitation to be prescribed, and that is why I say that the county committees should not have the authority or the ability to vary these schemes without a clear definition or limitation, and for that reason I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment.
You have evinced some impatience with my argument, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I am trying to relate it to a matter of practical experience. These committees, in my view, are tending more and more to be representative of farmers and not representative of the nation.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope I have not been impatient with the hon. Member's argument, but I do not see what the constitution of the committees has to do with the substitution of "shall" for "may" in this Amendment.

Mr. Snow: The reason is this. If these all-powerful committees may, if they see fit, prescribe definitions or limitations——

The Deputy-Chairman: The committees do not prescribe. It is the scheme which prescribes, as the hon. Member will see if he looks at the Clause.

Mr. Snow: I may be under a misapprehension, but as I see it, if these schemes are drafted by the Minister and implemented by the committees, and if the committees have the ability not to


impose a limitation, then a certain amount of abuse of these schemes will be possible.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I have no doubt that there is very great virtue in this Amendment, but I see some difficulty inasmuch as compulsory definitions are put into a scheme particularly in relation to this year. When the Minister made the announcement of these grants, he did not then say that there would be any limitations. I am sure that many farmers rushed to plough up grassland because of the incentive of the grant. I can see that much hardship can be caused if limiting factors are now imposed in any scheme which the Minister may prepare in respect of the current year.
I can see that many farmers will have ploughed up land and, perhaps, will not fall within the limitations which might be put into the scheme. Therefore, while there might be great virtue in inserting the word "shall" instead of "may" in relation to schemes for other years, I think it would be hardly fair to these people who, as a result of the Minister's statement in the House, have ploughed up land and who would find themselves outside the scheme which the Minister prepares if this Amendment is carried.
As I understood the Minister's statement, it was a plain statement that those who ploughed up grassland which had been put down to grass over the requisite period would qualify for a subsidy. It is hardly fair to those who have done that and who have fulfilled the obligation —and they had to do it before the end of May—now to suggest that the scheme shall impose limitations which may debar them from the benefits which the Minister held out to them as an encouragement to go forward.
There may be great virtue in inserting these words in respect of future years, but in respect of the present season, at any rate, I think the guiding factor must be the Minister's statement in the House, and all those who have responded to the incentive which he then offered ought to qualify this year.

Mr. Snadden: I must say that I agree with what the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) has said, and I am sorry tO have to tell those hon. Members who support this Amendment that we cannot

see our way to accept it, because we feel it would tie the Government's hands to too great an extent and would introduce an unnecessary rigidity into the Bill. I think we are all agreed that generally the more rigid provisions of this kind are, the more difficult administration becomes when it comes to implementing a Bill of this sort. There is also the question of manpower involved if we. create a great deal of clerical work which, I think 1 can say, is unnecessary.
The Amendment, as I understand it, would make it obligatory that every scheme should define or limit the kinds of land under grass for which grants would be payable. This in certain circumstances would prove to be extremely complicated, and indeed it could prove to be quite wasteful in its operation. For example, if the scheme were to apply, as the present scheme does, to all land under grass, it would be necessary to give a precise description of every type of grassland in the country.

Mr. Paget: Why?

Mr. Snadden: That is what this Amendment means. It says that a scheme shall "provide for defining or limiting the kinds of land under grass." That makes it obligatory on the Government to define in their scheme every type of grassland——

Mr. Paget: Oh, no. Surely the word "all" both limits and defines.

Mr. Snadden: The Amendment seeks to put an obligation upon us to define in every scheme the kinds of land for which a grant is to be paid. I cannot read it in any other way.

Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is not now answering the point which my hon. and learned Friend has put to him. If the Minister's objection is that he does not want to be put to the trouble of defining all land if we want to include all land, the point of my hon. and learned Friend, which he ought to answer, is: Would it not be a definition if we merely said "all land"? What is there difficult about including all grassland? If that is the answer, why resist the Amendment?

Mr. Snadden: If we are going to bring in an all-embracing scheme such as we are bringing in at the moment, I am


advised that this Amendment would mean that we should have to particularise and specify, according to the legal reading of it, every kind of grassland under that scheme. We feel that that would complicate things far too much and would cause us a great deal of unnecessary work, because today there are plenty of forms and pamphlets explaining things to farmers, and to have another one defining all the kinds of grassland would, I think, involve a great deal of difficulty and complexity. There cannot be any justification for such particularity of definition where such generality is involved, and that is the point I want to make with regard to the present scheme, which is all-embracing.
The principle underlying the Government's proposal is that the provision regarding definition or limitation shall be permissive rather than mandatory, so that where a scheme is intended to be selective definition will, of course, be necessary and we shall define in that scheme precisely what we intend to do and on what kinds of land we will pay a grant. But where a scheme is all-embracing, such as this one, the exact definition of that scheme and the elaborate nature of defining it, which would be inevitable, would be unnecessary.
The Amendment would introduce, not what hon. Members opposite want—a desirable safeguard—but an unnecessary and probably impracticable responsibility. I am sorry to have to reject it, but I can tell hon. Members opposite that we are prepared to accept the following Amendment, which raises a slightly different point, about the minimum period. I have full authority to accept that, on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Paget: I should still be most grateful if I could have an answer to the question I asked the hon. Gentleman in my speech. What has he in mind with regard to the definition and limitation of grassland to which the subsidy shall apply, other than the length of time that it has been done?

Mr. Snadden: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see what our definition is if he looks at the last subsection in the Bill. Of course, if we wish to vary that in any future scheme, we may miss out some of the parts that are included in the reference.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman has in mind that he- might not wish it to apply to clover, lucerne or sainfoin, or mixtures of clover. It will become an awfully difficult definition if we are to cut them out, because as the hon. Gentleman knows, nearly every grazing is mixed.

Mr. Snadden: That subsection in the Bill refers to all grassland, and if we bring in a fresh scheme which is different from the present one we shall define particular types of land to which the scheme shall apply. That will mean that some of the things included in the last subsection may not be included in a fresh scheme.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has told me, but I have a great difficulty in realising why he rejects this Amendment. If the only definitions which he has in mind are those in the final subsection of this Bill, which includes six types of grazing land——

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: And grass.

Mr. Paget: —seven types of grazing land, that would seem to me to burden unduly any scheme which he might have in mind. If I am wrong—and I should not have thought I was—in suggesting that if one included "shall" instead of "may," none the less "all kinds of grassland" would be a perfectly good definition, I do not think one would unduly burden the scheme if one repeated what, according to the hon. Gentleman, is a comprehensive definition of all kinds of grassland—the half dozen or seven types which are contained in Section 5 (3).
The reason we are anxious that something of this sort shall be done is that we do want rigidity where we are using this subsidy system and using public money. There are certain words which have a curious magic to them. "Rigidity" and "appeasement" sometimes acquire a special meaning. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that "rigidity" is not always an uncomplimentary term. For instance, if one is on a step ladder, it is a very complimentary term. Where one is making provisions for the payment of public money, to say that those provisions are rigid is a compliment to them and, indeed, the performance of a duty of this Committee.
We are very anxious that agriculture shall work for a price. I think the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) will agree with me that agriculture should work for a price and not be supported by a series of loose subsidies. Where a subsidy is required, the more rigidly and precisely it is defined, the better. If, in any particular subsidy, it simply involves looking through to see whether or not one should include lucerne, that process should be gone through with the scheme and we should be told whether or not lucerne is to be included.
If the hon. Member says that he is going to accept the next Amendment, I ask him to have second thoughts and to accept this one and to tell us, in each specific scheme, whether lucerne shall be in or out.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can be very happy about the reply he has given us. He himself must know that he spent the first part of his reply in telling us that it would be quite impossible to put any definition into the scheme. The first part of his reply was a criticism of the words contained in the Clause at the moment and not a reply to the Amendment which I have moved. He said that there would be too much work involved and that it would be too burdensome and irksome to try to put this definition into the scheme, and then, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), he said that the definition the Government have in mind is the definition to be found in the last subsection of the Bill.
Since the definition of the different kinds of land is the sort of thing the Government had in mind when they drew up this scheme for the approval of this Committee, I should have thought it would not have been difficult, or that the Government would have been hindered in any way by the acceptance of our Amendment, if they had put into the first scheme the whole of the definition, bringing in all grassland.
I concede the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole). I do not want to see the farmer who was promised a subsidy in February deprived of the subsidy under this scheme, but I submit that the acceptance of this

Amendment would not necessarily deny him the subsidy. We should merely say, when defining the land in the first scheme, that all this land was to be included. If this Amendment were accepted, we should not necessarily provide any limits to the kind of land under grass which would benefit under the scheme. As I said in moving the Amendment, we are not seeking to delete the word "or" and insert "and". The word "or" would remain and that part of the Clause would still be alternative or permissive.
The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said:
It will be possible, for instance, if it is desired and approved by the House, for one scheme to provide for different rates of grant for different types and kinds of grassland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 422.]
If the Minister wishes to shelter under the permissive power that he gets by refusing the Amendment, he does not have to put in any definition. If he does not put in any definition, the Committee will not be able to discuss the desirability of providing different rates of grant for different types of land. We shall only be able to discuss what is in the scheme. When we discuss Statutory Instruments, we are not free to discuss matters not included in them.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): I think there is a little confused thinking here, perhaps on both sides. There will always be a definition in the scheme, and what I said on Second Reading stands today. The only time when there will not be a definition will be when all grass is included, and that, of course, comes within Clause 5 (3), which defines grass. A scheme simply on grass would mean grass as defined in that subsection. If there were any limitation it would be specifically defined.

Mr. Fraser: I do not wish to continue this discussion unnecessarily. Indeed, I think that more often than not the Minister will provide for a definition when he introduces schemes and will act as if the word "may" were replaced by "shall." I doubt whether he will seek to take advantage of this little word in the Bill which he is not willing that we should change. I do not wish to argue the matter further at the risk of being charged with breaking the bi-partisan agricultural policy. The proper thing to


do would be to withdraw the Amendment, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I am all in favour of a bi-partisan policy in agriculture as long as the other side agree with me.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
I understand that the Government are willing to accept the Amendment, which seems to me the correct decision, because it would be foolish to have a provision in the Bill stating that the scheme
may require the land to have been continuously under grass for a minimum period.
That "may" ought certainly to be "shall."

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Mr. Hopkin Morris, are you calling the next Amendment, in page 2, line 7, after "period," insert "not exceeding three years"?

The Deputy-Chairman: Let us dispose of this one first.

Mr. Paget: The only reason I raised the point of order was that if you were not calling it, I should have something to say on this Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment is not being called.

Mr. Paget: I speak on behalf of those who go in for a seven-year rotation. I have not seen the first scheme yet, but I understand that the condition was to be four years. A four-year condition excludes those who are working a seven-year rotation, which is three years grass and four years under the plough. This does not apply to my district in the Midlands, where we have fairly heavy land, but I understand that on light land this is an extremely desirable rotation. I am afraid that if we make the period four years, a good many people who are working the seven-year rotation will keep the grass down for an extra year in order to qualify for the subsidy.
Thus, by having a four-year condition instead of a three-year condition, we might get less ploughing in this respect than if we had no subsidy at all. People who, according to their normal plan,

would plough at the end of three years, will be induced by the conditions of the subsidy to put off their ploughing for another year in order to qualify for the subsidy. I ask the Minister, when he considers using these powers, to consider also taking three years rather than four.

Sir T. Dugdale: I understand that we are discussing the Amendment which the Government have accepted and that the next Amendment is not to be called. I want to say a word in reply.

The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment is not being selected and we are dealing with the Amendment in line 6.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. The Amendment which you have selected, Mr. Hopkin Morris, provides that it shall be obligatory to impose a minimum period specified in the scheme. In an Amendment making it obligatory to provide a minimum period, it must be relevant to discuss what that minimum period ought to be. That is why I asked whether you were calling the next Amendment, because what I have had to say was clearly relevant to this Amendment, although it might have been more convenient to discuss it at another time.

The Deputy-Chairman: I mistook what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said. I thought he was going to deal with the Amendment which has not been selected.

Sir T. Dugdale: I started incorrectly. The point which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made will be borne very carefully in mind. The first scheme is for four years and over, but in future schemes which may be introduced we will take into account the point which he made. I do not want to give him any hope this evening that the Government will necessarily agree with his view, although very careful consideration will be given to the question of the period of years in the general interest of what we want to achieve.
If we came below the four-year period in the first scheme, it would make the first scheme ultra vires, because details have already been announced of our intentions, which exclude land which has been under grass for only three years. We stand on our announcement about the first scheme, but in any future schemes we will bear in


mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman said when we consider the detailed provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(d)shall provide that no grant shall be made in respect of the ploughing up of land under grass and of the carrying out of further operations on the land after ploughing if in the opinion of the county agricultural executive committee a failure so to plough or so to carry out further operations would constitute a failure on the part of the applicant farmer to perform his obligations under the Agriculture Act, 1947.
This is a somewhat difficult point to draft adequately and clearly and to place in its proper place in the Bill. On the other hand, it is a point which raises important considerations. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not shelter behind any suggestion that our words do not adequately meet the position, because we claim no particular credit for the form of words chosen. I hope he will seek to meet the point of substance.
The attitude which many of us have adopted on the Bill, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr.. Paget) said, and as I said earlier, is that we dislike this form of payment and this subsidy rather more than some others, for a variety of reasons which I can shortly and briefly recapitulate. In the first place, we pay for more than we really get, because we pay for a subsidy over all the ploughing up which is done, when much of it would have been done in any case. We pay a subsidy to those who ought, in the interests of good husbandry and in accordance with the obligations which they have assumed under the Agriculture Act, to be doing the ploughing up any way, fitting it into their economy.
We make a special payment—I used the word "bribe" on Second Reading and the Parliamentary Secretary did not like it—to induce them to do what is an ordinary part of adequately farming their land. If the Minister is determined to go on with this form of payment I think he is even more bound to seek some means of limiting the extent to which he is to pay for what he ought to have anyway.
7.0 p.m.
In the debates we have had on agriculture many hon. and right, hon. Gentlemen have said that the 1947 Act gave the

farming community a measure of stability and security, and that, in return, that community accepted certain obligations to the country. We ought to use it—and the Minister went a considerable way, I think, last Thursday, in this respect, and certainly in the circular he sent round to the county committees—to see that the obligations accepted under the Act are as faithfully fulfilled, as vigorously imposed, as the security and stability parts of the Act. That, I think, is important and proper, and that is why, I think, we are bound to try to prevent our having to pay a subsidy that really gives us no worth while return merely because, otherwise, the work is not done.
I referred earlier today to my own experience with the county executive committees. Unquestionably, in very many cases it was the people whom we had the greatest difficulty in getting to farm according to the requirements of the nation who were always jumping in quickest to reap any particular subsidy payment that was put on. We always knew, time and time again, that it would be the bad and difficult people we were trying to jolly on who would plough up, and take the subsidy, but then grow only inadequate crops.
I am asking in this Amendment that we should insert into the Bill a form of words which will make it quite clear that we are not seeking to use this payment as an inducement for that sort of man to do what he ought to do very much better anyway. The county committee will act as investigating agent of the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary told us in the Second Reading debate that it will not check every particular case but take a sample of 10 per cent. of cases particularly concerned with the fulfilment of the obligations under the Act. There would seem to me to be no practical reason why a committee should not see this man is dealt with under the Maximum Area of Pasture Order.
Incidentally, can the Minister give us figures about the operation of the Order since October? I have raised this matter with the Government since they came to power, and I mentioned it on Second Reading debate. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has some figures we should like to know what they are. I still feel that there are many cases in which one really ought to proceed against those men under the Maximum Area of


Pasture Order, simply because they are not doing what they should in proper farming, and because of the acceptance of their obligations under the Act.
I can understand the Minister's saying, "I want the subsidy because there is a class of fellow for whom the £5 ploughing-up subsidy just about tips the balance between what is profitable and what is not, between what he can afford to do and what he cannot." I always think that that argument is a bit overdrawn, but there is such an argument and there is such a class of man, and I accept the argument to that extent for the subsidy; but I do not believe that the big fellow, who is up to date, and mechanised, and has the "know how," ought to be subsidised to do the ordinary routine ploughing. I do not believe that the man who can be expected to do it ought to be able to get away with not doing it.
I believe that we can give the Minister what he wants only in the cases in which it can really be shown that it is justified, and, at the same time, save the country a considerable amount of money, and without any loss of food, if we make it plain, by the insertion of some words such as this, that the people who are not doing their job will be dealt with under the other powers that the Minister has available to him. We ought not merely to incite and induce people, by this sort of payment, to do this sort of work. If the Minister does not like our form of words I hope that he will seek to find a better form to achieve the same purpose, but I think he ought to accept the principle of the Amendment.
I think it is important in view of some speeches made in this Chamber and in view of attacks made on the industry outside about subsidy being paid. A good deal of publicity has been given to those attacks. We should show the consumers and taxpayers that we are being very careful to use the subsidy only where it is of immense value and where it is quite clearly necessary. If the consumer, the taxpayer, thinks that we are to pay what he will call a bribe of £5 an acre—even if the Parliamentary Secretary does not like my using that term—to many farmers who ought to be doing this work anyhow, he will think this a "bit thick."
I should like to be able to say that the we are not doing that, but that we are going to deal with those men under the Act, and that we are paying this subsidy only to the limited class of people for whom it tips the balance between what is worth while and what is not.

Mr. Paget: I feel that we ought to bear very strongly in mind all the time that we are dealing with public money here, and that we have not a right to use the taxpayers' money to pay for something to which the taxpayers are entitled anyway. The bargain which was given to agriculture by the 1947 Act—one which, I believe, was approved by all sides—gave the taxpayers certain rights as against the farmers, and the farmers certain securities as against the taxpayers.
One of the provisions of that Act was, that the farmer should farm his land properly; and we ought not to use public money to give him an additional inducement to farm his farm properly when he is not doing so. I believe it is very much in the interests of the farmer, because to provide special payments for people who are not doing their job will provide tremendous opportunity for people who take the same point of view as my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans).
There is developing to some extent something which I very much hoped we had put behind us—the ancient antagonism of town and country. We had a system that gave the countryside, for the first time for over a century, a reasonable deal, and which, at the same time, was an arrangement that was acceptable to the towns. We need to be very careful indeed, those of us who care for agriculture and the countryside, not to provide any opportunities for people to say, "The farmer is being feather-bedded all the time. You are providing him with a special and new payment in order to make him fulfil an obligation which you have already secured on our behalf. Of course, he takes all the advantages of the 1947 Act. When you want him to play his part you have to put your hands in your pockets over again to make him do it."
That is not the sort of argument we want to leave open. The man who neglects his pasture, who lets it get into a state in which it is bad farming not to plough it, ought not to be paid a


subsidy for not farming badly. That is the provision we seek to make by this Amendment. I agree with my right hon. Friend that these may not be the best words, but some provision of this sort, either these words or other words which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may have thought of or may in the future think of, ought to be put in here to provide for this objective, and to guard farming generally from the criticism which will otherwise be directed against it.

Mr. Nugent: I immediately recognise the intention of the Amendment as being valuable and designed to help. The difficulty, as always in a broad national picture where we are dealing with literally hundreds of thousands of farms, is to equate the perfect arrangement with the possible. The complaint of the right hon. Gentleman, that a subsidy of this kind might well be paid inevitably to some people who would have ploughed anyway, to some people who ought not to have ploughed, and that there will, therefore, be only one section out of the three who will be specifically assisted to plough, is bound to be true. That is a matter of fact. It is a matter of opinion, of course, how big the different sections are.
With the first section, those who would have ploughed anyway, in the designing of schemes my right hon. and gallant Friend has had particular regard to trying to fix a period which would exclude them. Indeed, that will be seen in the first scheme, in that it is made a four-year ley and not a three-year ley. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) appreciates only too well the significance of that. Those who work a three-year ley system on a seven-year rotation get excluded, and it seems rather hard luck. On the other hand, it does save the taxpayer from paying something unnecessarily.

Mr. Paget: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that a man who works a seven-year rotation is a good fanner. He is not a person who is neglecting his duty.

Mr. Nugent: I do indeed agree. But while we recognise the valuable contribution he is making, it would not be right to spend extra public money to induce him to do what would in any event be a sound economic proposition for him, and we so differentiate.
With the other section, those who ought to plough up anyway, there is a greater difficulty. In the Second Reading debate I gave the right hon. Gentleman figures of the number of orders that had been served up to the end of last October. I apologise that I have no more up-to-date figures. There are not any. We shall in due course have a further return, but I am not able to give him anything further at the present time. If he would like to put down a Question we will see whether those figures can be made available in the near future.
I hope and believe that as a result of the new impetus which my right hon. and gallant Friend has given this matter that county committees will use the Maximum Area of Pasture Order perhaps a little more readily in these cases where it should be used, but this matter does have to be left finally to their discretion, and we are doing our utmost to see that we bring about the right climate of opinion in the counties so that the county committees will have a keener sense of the individual farmer's obligation to grow what the nation requires.
7.15 p.m.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be intolerable, as a general practice, if we were subsidising somebody who was not playing his full part in growing what the nation requires. We believe—I certainly do myself—that, in the main, county committees are discharging their responsibility, and with this greater imeptus I hope that they will now be encouraging farmers who have not up to now been ploughing up to do so where they can. But at the end of the day it is a very difficult practical problem, especially in some of the higher rainfall areas on the smaller farms with more difficult land, to determine whether it is a case for a Maximum Area of Pasture Order or not. On the broad picture one could always say that, where a field should be ploughed up—to qualify, in terms of the Bill—where it ought to have been served with a Maximum Area of Pasture Order, they should not have a subsidy anyway. It must be a matter of judgment.
We have looked at the wording put down by the right hon. Gentleman, but we cannot accept it. We feel that it would have too restrictive an effect; it


would create an impossible administrative problem for county committees to carry out all the checking that would become essential if the Amendment were accepted. Although the broad intention is certainly what is incorporated in the Bill, and in everything my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, I must, with regret, reject the Amendment because it would be impossible to operate it in practice.

Mr. Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary is always so engaging and so courteous to the Committee, and discussions of agricultural matters in these days go through in so friendly a fashion, that I am a little reluctant to intervene. At the opening of this discussion I understood that we were also to discuss the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(d)shall provide that no grant shall be made in respect of the ploughing up of land under grass or of the carrying out of further operations on the land after ploughing unless the county agricultural executive committee certify that the land in respect of which a grant is claimed was suitable for ploughing and for any further operation provided for in the scheme.
I am not quite sure whether that course is now being taken because I have since been told that only one Amendment is being discussed. There is practically no difference between them, except that the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend refers to obligations under the Agriculture Act, 1947, while in the other Amendment responsibility for judging the standard of farming is left to the county agricultural executive committees.

The Temporary Chairman: The Chairman has selected the third proposed Amendment to line 10, that standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. The other one to which the hon. Member refers, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), could be discussed with it.

Mr. Hale: That is what I had in mind, Mr. Bowles.
As there has been some argument about which is the appropriate form of words, perhaps it would not be too discourteous to my right hon. Friend or to

the Parliamentary Secretary to say that on a mature reflection I, personally, prefer the words put down by my hon. and learned Friend and myself.

Mr. G. Brown: I am not sure that the purpose of my Amendment is not altogether different from the purpose of the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend. No doubt his form of words is more suitable for the purpose he has in mind, which was to certify that the land was suitable for ploughing and for further operations. The Amendment we are discussing, with my form of words, is equally more suitable for my purpose, which was to ensure that the farmer was being paid for something he could not be required to do earlier. I submit that there are two quite different purposes involved, and that my wording is good for my purpose whereas his wording is good for his.

Mr. Paget: What I had in mind in my Amendment, which was not accepted, were water meadows.

The Temporary Chairman: Both Amendments can be discussed together.

Mr. Hale: I am very glad to have my hon. and learned Friend's assistance, because it shows that he had in mind other matters besides those which he put on the Order Paper. I should have thought that the job that the county agricultural executive committee were already doing was the sort of job that would keep them in touch with this particular problem. It is their problem to consider whether agricultural land is being utilised for the benefit of the community and developed in an appropriate way. We are asking that they, with their knowledge, should take steps to inform the Minister of cases in which either wholly unsuitable land is being ploughed up in order to get the subsidy or the appropriate development mentioned in any scheme is not being fully carried out.
The Parliamentary Secretary has to face the problem that the whole of the discussion on the first Amendment and much of the discussion on the Bill will be concerned with the type of conditions laid down in any scheme which he makes. If he says that the county agricultural executive committees cannot see that the terms of a scheme are carried out and cannot examine the administration of it, who is going to do


it? How will he know that the terms which he lays down are carried out at all unless some responsibility is vested in the county agricultural executive committees normally charged with that particular responsibility?
I did not follow the reference which the Parliamentary Secretary made to a third-year ley being outside the operations of the scheme. I have been doing some hurried mathematics since his statement, and I gather that it is by taking the period that comes in by backdating in the first paragraph of Clause 2 and adding the two years' minimum in the scheme in the third paragraph of Clause 1. I am afraid that I cannot work it out, but I am reassured by that belief.
We are told, and I do not challenge it, that the grants in respect of development already taking place will date from 4th February, that being the date on which the Minister made his announcement. 1 can apprehend that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in coming to that conclusion, would be inhibited by some of the criticism which is almost invariably made in the House of any proposals which are retrospective in their effect. It is well to remember that, so far as the present year is concerned, it is not a question of dividing the people into people who are developing usefully, well and appropriately.
The only people who will benefit in the present year under this scheme are those who develop land usefully after the first announcement was made, and who were too late to provide first-class ploughable land in this year, except in the extreme south of England, whereas the people normally doing good farming and ploughing up land last November and December will get no benefit at all. Those who are engaged on the normal term of rotation will not get any benefit for a long time. In other words, the good farmer will be specially penalised by the rigidity of the determination not to date this back beyond 4th February.
We were told—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—on Second Reading that about 500,000 acres would come in the normal part of the four years' ley, and 150,000 acres have been the subject of application in respect of special ploughing up.

Mr. Nugent: The figures related to the applications received for Northern Ireland ploughing up under this subsidy scheme.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry if I misunderstood.

Mr. Bing: I understood that it was hoped to have about 500,000 acres altogether. Of these, are 150,000 acres for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, 150,000 acres was the figure for Northern Ireland. I have not given any figures today of the total expectations.

Mr. Bing: So far as my recollection goes, on Second Reading the Minister said 500,000 acres. Is the proportion 350,000 acres for Great Britain and 150,000 acres for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Nugent: The figure of 500,000 acres as given by my right hon. and gallant Friend is his estimate to begin with. In fact, it is hoped and believed that the total will be considerably higher.

Mr. Hale: I am glad that my intervention has brought forth that information. The figures does seem to be extraordinarily high. Everyone realises the dilemma with which the Parliamentary Secretary is faced in this matter. In many ways this subsidy is designed to help people to plough up bad land as well as good. In many ways it would give the maximum benefit to the country if it brought under the plough land which has never really been beneficially used for agriculture. There is land in Leicestershire that has done nothing but raise deer for 50 or 60 years. Within 12 months of ploughing up it produced some of the best oat crops in the country. I am not talking about ploughing up mountain sides, but there is a great deal of land in the country which has never been fully developed for agricultural purposes, either as pasture or as arable land.
There is going to be great difficulty in differentiating between the man who makes a genuine effort to expand his holding and take in undeveloped land in that connection in the future and the man who, merely for the sake of getting the subsidy, ploughs up useful land with the object of doing no more than the bare minimum which the scheme provides that he should do.
In this connection, I should have thought that there could be no authority


other than the county agricultural executive committees likely to be seized with the necessary information and able to exercise the necessary judgment. After all, the county agricultural executive committees used to dispossess farmers on the ground of bad farming. There could be nothing much added to the burden which they used to exercise rather extensively in war-time by asking them to report on the faulty utilisation of the subsidy procedure.

Mr. Paget: I admit that there is no doubt at all that if this Amendment were accepted the instrument would be the county agricultural committee, in just the same way as, I think, the instrument will be the county agricultural committee under Clause 3 (1, b), which provides for supervision and subsequent things. The point of difference between the two is that the second deals with failure to conform with the obligations of good farming, and the Amendment which has not selected dealt with the suitability of the land, such as water meadows unsuitable for cropping, but which are suitable for ploughing and reseeding with grass.

Mr. Hale: My hon. and learned Friend keeps coming out of a coma, and has paid no regard to the preceding six or seven sentences in which I have been referring to the problem of undeveloped land and the differences between land ripe for development and capable of development and land never suitable at all for ploughing. I thought that I had made that clear to the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend wants to make it quite clear that in his Amendment the emphasis is entirely on the nature of the land and that in the comprehensive Amendment of my hon. Friend there is a reference to development. In any event, both are clearly matters for the county agricultural executive committees.
My hon. and learned Friend says that the duty of judging in relation to the scheme made under Clause 3 might well be entrusted to the county agricultural executive committees. I do not dispute that. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary say that those committees cannot judge this? I do not know whether I am now to get agreement upon that, for, if so, we have almost reached unanimity, although, my hon. and learned Friend was almost in a complete minority on this.
However, the point that I have been trying to make, perhaps not with quite as much clarity as I could command, is that it is not fair to the committees to say that they are not competent to judge these matters. For that reason, I press the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this as an important matter of practice in connection with the administration of the scheme and as an important matter of confidence in the way it is to be carried out.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I want to follow what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to the Parliamentary Secretary and to add a little more weight of my own. The argument with which the Parliamentary Secretary has been briefed has done a good deal less than justice to his own capacity and to the competence of his Department.
As I understood the hon. Gentleman, there was no disagreement at all between the Government and the Opposition on the argument that we did not want to pay this money to people who ought to be ploughing anyway and who could be got at in another way, but the hon. Gentleman said that he did not know how far since he took office the committees had been using a power which they already had.
I had a limited experience at the Ministry of Agriculture, but I am staggered that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not know whether a single order has been issued between October and June. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to talk about the new impetus and the new upsurging which his right hon. and gallant Friend is bringing to this. But he and his right hon. and gallant Friend do not appear to get returns as often as we did. We have debated this subject twice and all the information that we have been given is what happened when the Labour Government was in office. We used the powers that we had, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and gallant Friend are doing so.
I am frightened that, despite the noble words which the hon. Gentleman used, he and his right hon. and gallant Friend are really relying on the bribe rather than on the powers which they have and


that that is why he is showing such peculiarly little interest in this. I am sure that before I had been at the Ministry eight months I should have asked for a return on what had been happening. I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister could visit a single county without first putting the obvious questions about what was being done under the Maximum Area Pasture Order. The fact that no returns have been made and that neither Minister has been disposed to call for them suggests to me that, far from there being a new upsurge, there has been a bit of backsliding. Because of that we ought to press the hon. Gentleman a good deal further before accepting the refusal to include something of this sort in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman said he was sure the county agricultural executive committees were discharging their responsibilities all right. That is good. As a former member of such a committee, I have never disputed that the committees can do it extremely well, but one thing that irritates and hampers committees is the feeling always that (a)they lack the powers really to do it, and (b) they are held up through the Ministry taking a somewhat different view. If we think the committees are willing and able to discharge their responsibilities, what can be wrong in putting this additional weapon in their hands?
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it must be a matter of judgment whether a farmer should have ploughed the land before or not, but a matter of judgment for whom? For the county agricultural executive committee? The Parliamentary Secretary says that the committees are carrying out their responsibilities. Very well. Why not let us give them the possibility of using this power?
Many a county agricultural executive committee would be very glad to have this additional shot in the locker when dealing with a man who has been very difficult and has always kept just on the right side of the law. They could then say to the man, "You are the sort of person to whom this refers. You ought to have done this before. We have not in the past been able to take any action, but we will certainly see that you do not get £5 of the taxpayers' money for doing it now." I can think of no county agricultural executive committee that I have

met which would not be glad to have this power, is not well able to use it and would not use it.
So far, the hon. Gentleman has not produced a single argument against the proposal. He almost commended the words of the Amendment. All he said was that they were a little restrictive. That is the whole point of the operation, to exclude certain people from receiving the £5 per acre. I gathered that the hon. Gentleman found no very great difficulty about the words. However, we have made it clear that he can have all the time between now and the Report stage to think up better ones.
The hon. Gentleman must have been impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West made without hearing the previous debate. I see that my hon. Friend is not at the moment in his place, and if he does not hurry back he may not hear the rest of it. However, the Parliamentary Secretary must have been impressed by the arguments used by my hon. Friend and also by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
We are on an important point here, and I am sure, as a result of my contacts in the country, that there will be no difficulty about the proposal. If the hon. Gentleman puts this to his next meeting of the chairmen of county agricultural executive committees they will enthusiastically tell him that they would like the power. This is not so drastic a supervision, nor is it as difficult to operate as the Maximum Area Pasture Order, but it is a useful shot in the locker and will give the committees no end of help.
I am not prepared to accept a flat rejection at this point. We must press the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get on with the Bill but cannot commit himself to accepting our proposal in the temporary absence of his right hon. and gallant Friend, let him at least say that he will look at this point with an open mind between now and the Report stage. This is a point of considerable importance and we ought not to let it go simply on the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has so far put to us.

Mr. James Johnson: Hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) use the militant


Phrase "a shot in the locker" has caused me to intervene. Having heard the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and my right hon. Friend, I want to enter a caveat. We have heard eulogies of the county agricultural executive committees; they have done a good job and they are composed very largely of first-class farmers.
Nevertheless, when I go to the market at Rugby and talk to the small farmers, I find them a little afraid at the moment that the small farmer is not quite as fashionable as he might be. I have heard the Minister talk about their efficiency and the farm survey, and I want to utter a caveat in relation to the wording of the Amendment, where it says:
… if in the opinion of the county agricultural executive committee a failure so to plough or so to carry out further operations would constitute a failure on the part of the applicant farmer to perform his obligations under the Agriculture Act, 1947.
I should hate that sort of wording to enable a county agricultural executive committee to institute some mild form— no more than that—of witch-hunt against a small farmer who did not plough up as much as he might or perhaps ploughed more than he should have done in order to get the £5 per acre. We have heard a lot about efficiency and about county agricultural executive committees having the facts and the knowledge to enable them to investigate such cases. The committees have a thankless job investigating these matters and sitting in judgment upon their neighbours. While I am in favour of the Clause as a whole and in favour of this Amendment, I hope we shall not give the county committees too much power to use on small farmers.

Mr. Paget: I want to add a word or two to what my right hon. Friend has said, because I do not feel that the Parliamentary Secretary is very pleased with his brief. Let us take what he told us about the seven-year rotation farmer. That farmer is doing a very intensive job during the cycle of production, and he is the person we want to encourage. But we are deliberately excluding him here because it is something which he would do anyway. The good farmer is to be excluded for that reason and his virtue is to be trusted that he will not be tempted

to put off the ploughing this year in the hope of getting a subsidy by so doing. But the bad farmer, in spite of the fact that he ought to do it anyway, is to receive a reward. Could anything be more unjust than that?
Here is a man who has gone to such lengths that he has a maximum pasture order served upon him. That does not happen to him unless he is a bad farmer and has been thoroughly unco-operative for a very long time. But in spite of the fact that he does his ploughing in obedience to such an order, he still draws a subsidy for doing this duty and making good a gross neglect. Equally, the "C" farmer under supervision, who is directed to plough because he ought to have done it long ago, now receives a reward for doing it, whereas the man who is working a seven-year rotation is excluded on the ground that he would do it anyway. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary recognises how unjust that is.
I am not so happy about the words of the Amendment, and they may be a little wide. Of course, this can be supervised by the county agricultural executive committees. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 3 (1, b), he will see the provision:
the appropriate Minister is of opinion that the ploughing or any further operation in respect of which the grant is to be made has been inefficiently carried out, or that adequate facilities for the inspection of the land have not been given.
That will require supervision. It would be a great deal easier for county agricultural committees, knowing their district, to pick out people who have been getting into trouble in regard to ploughing for years and who ought to have done the job long ago, and to say to them, "You are not to be given a subsidy for having neglected our advice for years." It would be far easier for them to carry out the supervision which is envisaged by this Amendment than it would be for them to carry out the wider supervision of all the work that is to be done to qualify for a grant pursuant to one of the schemes.
I do not think that the difficulty of supervision or administration, in view of the burden of supervising the tillage which follows from one of these schemes, is an adequate excuse here. I do not see why one should be more difficult than the other, but I should think that it would be much easier where the seven-year rotation farmer is excluded to include the


fellow who is under a "C" farm order or a maximum pasture order.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Bing: Before the very patient Parliamentary Secretary gets up, I want to appeal to him, if he cannot accept these words, to consider them with the possibility of doing something further on the Report stage. I know it is normal and right that we should rejoice more over one sinner who has repented than over ninety and nine just persons, but that does not mean giving one sinner £5 and denying it by Act of Parliament to the ninety and nine just persons.
There is a great deal in the argument that has been addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that there are bad agricultural committees, but the remedy there is to improve the committees and not to take away from their power, because this is a very valuable form of local democracy and these committees ought to be strengthened and given authority. The value of the committees will depend upon the value of the authority which they have, and the sort of people who will be attracted to them will depend to some degree upon the responsibility which they have.
In all these schemes it is very important that we should see that the agricultural committees have some greater part in the management and the control of the area than they have at the moment. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that all this is to be put into and worked out in a scheme. If he is going to tell us that, perhaps we can wait until there is an affirmative order and deal with it on that occasion. But I feel that he ought to consider the possibility of including some form of words here.
An excellent point was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he made a passing reference to the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). I am surprised that he has not been taking a strong and forthright part in our proceedings, but the fact that he is not physically with us does not mean that his influence is not prevailing. There are people who take the same point of view as he does. I admire the way he puts it, although it is not my point of view. But it is very important

that not only should justice be done, but it should appear to be done.
In this case, it is desirable that in an Act of Parliament we should not put in something which leads somebody to say, "Oh, here is a method by which our feather-bedded farmers can get rewarded for ploughing up an old bit of land on which they know that nothing will grow and which is worthwhile because they will get £5."
I apologise, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, for having detained the Committee on this point, but if the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, has been persuaded to make some slight concession, I do not think that the time of the Committee will have been wasted.

Mr. Nugent: I cannot undertake to put in these words, or something like them; nor can I hold out a prospect that some-think of that kind will appear in the scheme. There are one or two specific points with which I would like to deal before I come to the main point. Because we have been discussing the two Amendments together, and to a certain extent the previous Amendment in which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is interested, dealing with the three-year ley point, there have been a number of points coming in together.
The three-year ley is not in the first scheme, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. The second scheme has not yet been published and I can undertake that we will look at it very closely to try to get the right balance between excluding the good farmers from its benefits and, on the other hand, spending the taxpayers' money unnecessarily. It is a difficult point. I do not think I should say more about it now.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) made a point which I think is germane to the Amendment which is before us. If the Amendment were in the Bill it would place upon county committees a very difficult decision. In the case of applications, are they to say, "No, you cannot have it. You will get a Maximum Area Pasture Order"; and to another applicant:" Yes, you can have it. You will get your £5 an acre"? That kind of responsibility never has been put upon these committees during the whole 12 or 13 years we have been operating this system of ploughing-up subsidies and


orders, at the same time, for the cultivation of fields. There are dangers in it. It is more likely to upset confidence and sentiment than to have the spurring effect which the right hon. Gentleman opposite quite rightly wants.
A point was made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) concerning the responsibility of committees. Of course, the county committees must be responsible. What I said was that there was a limit to the amount of administration they could cover. I was addressing myself rather to the first Amendment than to the second in that respect. The second Amendment would not of itself necessarily greatly increase administration. I agree with that point. The first Amendment would do so substantially, because committees would have to check nearly every individual application. In practice, it is not possible to check more than a 10 per cent. sample, but that has been found reasonably satisfactory in the past to ensure that the subsidy has not been abused.
The purpose of the Bill is not, as has sometimes been stated, to give a reward to somebody for ploughing. Ploughing is only at the beginning of the job. My right hon. and gallant Friend was faced with a seriously declining tillage acreage. It had fallen over the last 12 months by over a million acres, just at the time when we want not only to maintain tillage acreage but to increase it. It was obvious that unless something special was done to assist quite a large number of farmers who have been reducing tillage acreage, that the decline would continue, particularly in the heavy rainfall areas where farms are small and difficult to farm, and the harvest had been bad. The whole picture was of farmers who found that tillage crops were not paying. If we were to get an increase in the tillage acreage we could do something to meet part of the rising costs of growing tillage crops.
That is the whole background of the picture. The payment of £5 is only a part payment. Actually, the sowing and harvesting of the crop will certainly cost between £10 and £20 an acre by the time it is completed. In our belief, the subsidy is just enough to make it profitable, so that the farmer who has not been doing it before will be encouraged and enabled

to start. It is in that spirit that we have looked at this matter. I believe that the number of abuses will be extremely small in practice, if not negligible.
I was asked for the figures. The response that we have had already amounts to between 600,000 and 700,000 acres in England, Scotland and Wales, with 150,000 in Northern Ireland. The total is about 650,000 acres altogether, and that shows that the subsidy is sufficient to get the increased tillage acreage that we want and which will produce the extra food that we want to get. I believe that for the sum of £2 million or £3 million, which will be the total cost of the subsidy, the nation will be getting good value.
I therefore ask the Committee not to press the Amendment, although the spirit of it is certainly in keeping with our general intention. I believe that it would rather upset confidence than increase it and would not help the object of the Bill, which is to get the committees working on a rather stronger tone and to produce rather more food.

Mr. Bing: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask him to complete the figures which he gave, and which were of very great interest to the Committee? Can he give the Scottish figure as well as that for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Nugent: I have not an exact figure. I would not like these figures to be taken as absolute. I understand that the Scottish figure is likely to be round about 150,000 or 200,000 acres. The overall total is round about 650,000. The response has been very good, but that is not a net increase because some of it was going to be found anyway. There is undoubtedly a substantial net increase.

Mr. G. Brown: We have had a very good debate, but I am not convinced that some provision of this kind could not be operated and placed in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary did better on the brief he wrote himself than on the previous one, and I am not disposed to press the Amendment further. I would like, as a matter of interest, to have this matter put on the agenda by the Parliamentary Secretary for his next agricultural conference. I believe that he would find some considerable support for the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apply a little pressure at


No. 55 Whitehall about the returns from the county committees in regard to the use of the Maximum Area Pasture Order. I will accept his invitation to put a Question down for the next Oral day and I hope that he will have some information to give us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. Fraser: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us a little more about the schemes that are to be made? I hope that the Government realise that they have rather confused the issue by many of the speeches that have been delivered. We are delighted to know that the acreage ploughed since 4th February last is so very much more than was expected. The Minister tells us from the Front Bench that the Bill is estimated to cost £2½ million. If the figures are right that the Parliamentary Secretary gave us just now, the cost will be not less than £3¼ million, so that there was an underestimate by at least £¾ million. However, that is perhaps a good thing, although it shows that the farmers were not such good boys as hon. Gentlemen opposite have so often said they were.
8.0 p.m.
I want the Minister to tell us what he has in mind about the schemes that will follow the first scheme in the next and subsequent years. In replying a little while ago the Parliamentary Secretary took up a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in which he seemed to agree that the farmer who had been directed to plough up grassland under a Maximum Area Pasture Order was necessarily guilty of bad husbandry in not having ploughed that grassland before.
I have never taken that view. I had thought that the Order might have given the committees power to get more ploughing in some areas where the plough was used a lot during the war and where it was put aside in the postwar years but where good husbandry was still being practised. I had assumed that executive committees would here and there have to give directions to farmers who were not guilty of bad husbandry although they had what the committees

consider to be an excessive area under grass.

Mr. Nugent: I should be sorry if I gave the impression that I did not take that same view. There might or might not be bad husbandry, but because there was an excessive area of grassland it would not in itself mean that there was bad husbandry although there might still be a justification for the order being made.

Mr. T. Fraser: That was my point. I was thinking of Berwickshire, where the standard of farming is very high, though I think the character of the farming should perhaps be changed a little. It was changed during the war and the plough was used a lot then with beneficial results. In the post-war years farmers too readily put the plough aside and went back to their pre-war practices, depending for their feedingstuffs upon outside sources instead of continuing to provide them for themselves. I should have thought that these farmers, though they are good farmers with a high standard of husbandry, should now be induced to use the plough more than hitherto.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that, in the main, the reduction in the acreage under the plough, and the reduction in the tillage acreage, was in the areas in the west and in the high rainfall areas where it was a risky business to put down a crop of grain because of harvesting difficulties. I should not think it would be a wise thing for Parliament to provide a subsidy to induce a man to plough his land to sow a crop of oats which he can never hope to harvest. In those areas it would be far better if he had a good grass crop with good grazing on which to feed his animals.

Mr. Manuel: I am most interested in this, and I think my hon. Friend is on a strong point. Is the gist of his argument that in many of our upland farms, and in the Highlands in particular, it would be better to procure a good hay crop for winter feed?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, or a good grass crop that could be cut or silaged. I believe that it would be complete madness for us to provide in a scheme made under this Bill for the payment of a subsidy to bad farmers who had three year, four year or five year grass. In


some parts of the country it would be good husbandry to do it; in other parts, it would be very bad.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton called attention, as I did during the Second Reading discussion, to areas in the country where a seven-year rotation is normal. It would be silly to give a subsidy to the farmer in those areas who ploughed his grass after three years. We ought to prosecute him when he did not. In other parts of the country it would be equally silly to encourage the farmer in the Western Highlands and down in the south-west to plough his land after four years in grass, because it would be far better if the land were left in grass. It was for those reasons that I was anxious, on an earlier Amendment, for the Minister to define a limit as to what kind of lands under grass would qualify for subsidy in subsequent years. We are concerned today much more with subsequent schemes than with the first schemes.
In all the circumstances will the Minister tell us more about what he has in mind? He must know quite clearly, because the Parliamentary Secretary has told us already that the first two schemes are in draft. So he has been giving a lot of thought to this and so have his advisers. He must know that it is not a straightforward business, and he must know that in subsequent years we cannot give this £5 per acre subsidy which is provided for in the first year. We are already giving the £5 subsidy for grass ploughed up after 4th February, 1952, but I do not believe we shall give a £5 subsidy for the four year old grass ploughed between June, 1952, and the end of May, 1953. If this subsidy is to be of any use it has to be applied to certain classifications of land, so perhaps the Minister will have to look at climatic conditions and altitudes in deciding, in future, which land shall benefit under this scheme.

Mr. Manuel: I tried earlier to get a point of view expressed on this Clause. I know that I must not deal with what has possibly been dealt with too much already, but I do not think my main points have yet been touched on. I do not know of any subject of more importance than the one we are dealing with,

taking a long-term view for Britain. The production of food and the making of our land more productive will certainly become more important each succeeding year.
I was rather surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary, in his very nice way, dismissed rather lightly some of the questions he was asked by my two hon. and learned Friends above the Gangway. I do not want to enter into any domestic squabble about Northern Ireland—I deplore such things. That is why I interjected when the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) made a slip. But I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to give us the correct figure as regards the balance on the subsidy position, although not because I am in any way against Northern Ireland being helped. In any event, we should explore every means of getting the greatest possible productivity throughout the United Kingdom.
It was not to be desired that we should engender any heat into the debate. The main object, surely, was to see how best we could obtain greater agricultural productivity throughout the country. The debate on the position of Northern Ireland and its agriculture was somewhat acrimonious, but I am all in favour of aid to Northern Ireland In itself, the Bill allows for Northern Ireland or Scotland, or England or Wales, to be dealt with separately, but in the previous debate the Government intimated that they were taking the four countries in a joint scheme.
I am rather surprised at the attitude of the Northern Ireland Members. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Armagh should say that he deplored any amendment to the Bill. Is there no feeling at all in Northern Ireland that they can run things themselves, even though they are being provided with the ploughing grant? Surely no Member from Northern Ireland would say that the members of the Government Front Bench, or officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, know the Irish position better than they themselves or the Northern Ireland Government know it?
The hon. Member for Armagh said he thought that the average unit farm in Ireland was even smaller than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) had indicated; he thought that it was about 40 acres. The


nearest figure that I can get from the Price Review is the figure quoted by my hon. and learned Friend of 59 acres, which is very small indeed in comparison with the average for England and Wales of 224-225 acres.
One is led to assume that the smaller unit ought not to be dealt with in an identical manner with the larger farming unit in England. In putting that argument in connection with Northern Ireland, I could repeat it for very many tenant-operated farms in Scotland—and possibly this will be of interest to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has these responsibilities upon his shoulders. I could put a very strong case that the small tenant farmer, ploughing a much smaller unit than that upon which the £5 per acre ploughing grant has been based, has a right to an even bigger grant than is indicated in the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
The Northern Ireland unit of 59 acres and the tenant farmer in Scotland, who I frequently see in my constituency trying to get the best productivity from his land, very often has greater expense per acre in trying to get that additional productivity than has the man with the larger unit. I see those tenant farmers having to hire mechanism to get work done. They have to approach the owners of larger farms for the hire of tractors for certain periods of work. In such conditions, we could very well argue that a tenant farmer in that position should get a higher grant than the farmer who operates a farm which runs into several hundreds of acres.
I may be told that such a proposal would create difficulties and that there are small farmers also in England and Wales—I appreciate that. But it is time that we considered whether the conditions for making grants should not be allied in some form or other to the question of acreage. We should not simply grant ploughing grants or anything else ad lib.without making certain that we get the production, and the kind of production, that we think is necessary when looking to the future and to the needs of the country.
The hon. Members from Northern Ireland could very well, without any loss of prestige, have said that Northern Ireland ought to have a separate scheme, because in my diagnosis of the position they are

much worse placed than the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harden: I understand that it is likely that they will do so in future years.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Armagh was so very definite in suggesting that the scheme must not be opposed, and should not be amended in the way that we suggested, that I thought his mind was made up for all time.
When one views the position in that way, we ought to be prepared, whether or not there is a debit balance arising from the grant or subsidy position, to say to the Government that Northern Ireland ought to have a certain responsibility. We are giving the grant and we know what we want from them, but we recognise that they know their own country best and that they can apply the grant in the best possible way in order to get the productivity. In saying that for Ireland, I would say the very same for Scotland, and I hope that in future we can look at the position from the viewpoint of acreage and that there may be some amendment.
I also think that the powers of the agricultural executive committees are possibly limited in certain respects. If they are not limited, there is something wrong in certain parts of the country. As I go up and down the country, I see far too many rushes and weeds coming into good ground, and I am sure that it would be an astonishing figure if we were to have an acreage return of the ground that is being allowed to go back, to go bad, because the agricultural executive committees are not using the powers that I understand they have.
If the grant of £5 per acre will improve that position, I am all in favour of it. I am convinced that there is nothing more important we can do on the home front than this. I believe that the Minister is completely seized with the idea of the type of ground of which I am speaking; I have heard him speak on the subject. It is rather frightening when going along some of our main county roads to see good ground going back to rushes and weeds when it ought to have been cultivated and turned up long ago. I hope that we shall have more attention paid to that matter.
When we consider that our cheese ration is reduced to one ounce per person per week and hears that we are


allowing milk to be used for other purposes than food it suggests that we should get down to the problem of conserving that milk. I was not cognisant of the position disclosed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), that buttons were being made from milk, but I think it dreadful if clothing, essential though it may be, has to be held together by appliances made from this commodity.
That position ought not to be allowed to continue and if milk exported from Northern Ireland is being used to make buttons it is time that the Northern Ireland Members did more about it. It is time that the milk was used for the making of cheese if it cannot be diverted to the stomachs of the people in its ordinary form.
I hope that while we agree to the ploughing-up grant of £5 per acre we shall take definite steps to see that the nation gets value for money and that agricultural produce, whether of milk or anything else, is utilised in the best possible fashion.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am afraid that I cannot share the strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) on this matter of making buttons from milk. There may be a very strong case for making buttons from certain types of milk. But I do join with him in suggesting that these schemes may well be varied for certain parts of the Kingdom.
I agree entirely that Northern Ireland should go in for its own scheme. The Clause as it stands takes rather too much for granted that the interests of Wales are sufficiently taken care of by tacking it on, as usual, to England. The farming unit in Wales is much smaller on the average than that in England and the arable proportion of every unit in Wales is also much smaller than the average in England. If the Welsh Department of Agriculture makes representations to the Minister for a varied scheme for the Principality, I hope that the Ministry will make an effort to produce one for Wales.
I have a further point to raise. It may only be a small drafting point, but subsection 2 says that there
may be a joint scheme for any two of the countries or for all three countries.

Which three countries? Four countries are named. Can it be that England and Wales are regarded by the present Government as one country? I wonder what the Minister for Welsh Affairs would have to say about that? Can it be that the present Government, whilst regarding half a Province as a country, refuses to regard the ancient nation of Wales as a country? I am sure that the Welsh electorate, which is now being so ardently wooed by a Liverpool Scot, will be anxious to know exactly how the present Government regard its national status.

Mr. Manuel: I take it that my hon. Friend is aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Liverpool Scot, is also responsible for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Roberts: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for a lot of things in the present Government.

Mr. F. Willey: Perhaps for transport.

Mr. Roberts: He seems to be responsible for transport, Northern Ireland, the B.B.C., and Wales. It is not only a matter of national feeling—although that, of course, is very important—there is a strong administrative point involved'. As the Minister of Agriculture knows, the Welsh Department for Agriculture is an active one and its present Secretary has just been raised in status and power. It may well be that schemes of this description will have to be varied administratively for the Principality. In that case, the drafting of this Clause and the definition Clause, Clause 5, may cause administrative difficulty.
I pass on the suggestion in the best possible spirit to the Government that between now and Report stage steps should be taken to redraft these parts of the two offending Clauses so that we in Wales shall know where we stand nationally and agriculturally.

Mr. F. Willey: I am glad I have been able to intervene before the Patronage Secretary upsets our proceedings, because I want to take the opportunity of saying that I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, earlier in our discussions, thought I had been unfair to him and to the Minister. If he feels that, I very much regret it and wish to assure him that all I was drawing attention to was lack of information and knowledge, and


that I did not want to convey anything beyond that.
I sympathise with them in that they did not have the benefit of the advice of the Minister of Food until later, and I particularly sympathise with them that now they have not the benefit of the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who advises on Welsh affairs. I am sure that the whole Committee very much appreciate the courtesy and assistance which are always afforded the House in Committee by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary.
The point with which I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal is one to which his attention has been called, and I think it is an important point. Here we are reverting to a producer subsidy. As long as we have a subsidised agriculture there will always be an argument about what form the incentive should take, whether it should be a direct price incentive or whether it should be, as we are providing for in this Clause, a producer subsidy.
8.30 p.m.
There is no argument about the benefits that we expect to follow from this producer subsidy for, after all, we gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. But there is still a good deal in the points made from this side of the Committee on the way in which the producer subsidy is given. It was because of the difficulties of ensuring that every advantage is taken of a producer subsidy that I think there was a tendency until recently to dispense with that subsidy and to rely upon the direct price incentive.
In the exceptional circumstances, the Minister obviously feels that a producer subsidy will enable him to achieve the results which he wants to achieve, particularly in the immediate future. Obviously he has considered the matter. I should like to know whether there is any way in which a producer subsidy can be made selective, whether it is possible to attach conditions and what sort of limitations can be attached to it. In other words, is it administratively possible to avoid a blanket producer subsidy which we know from experience can cause a good deal of wasteful activity and cause land to be ploughed up which would not help us very much?
That is the point of substance which I wish to raise. But I should like to say in passing, that I am not altogether satisfied that we can be assured—because I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary was very specific about this matter —that this producer subsidy in the case of Northern Ireland might not provide fodder for cows to provide milk to make buttons. I was disturbed by the intervention which suggested that this was done previously by a Tory Government, because we know today that there is a slump in textiles and I should guess that at this very moment we might have this diversion of milk to buttons.

Mr. Bing: I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, when they sum up on this Clause, will give the Committee the benefit of their views upon exactly how these schemes are to be worked. First, on what basis are they going to decide to have one, two, or three schemes? The Parliamentary Secretary gave us some very interesting figures. It seems that in Scotland there are up to 200,000 acres; that is to say, there will be one scheme for 200,000 acres and one scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to include 450,000 acres.

Mr. William Ross: If my memory does not mislead me, we were told on Second Reading that there was not to be a separate scheme for Scotland.

Mr. Bing: I understood there was to be a separate scheme, but perhaps there has been a change. As far as I can recall the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, there were administrative advantages in that. Might not there be equal administrative advantages in having a scheme for Wales? It has not been so much on this side of the Committee as among hon. Members opposite that, in election programmes and on other occasions, emphasis has been laid that we were to have a great deal of devolution for Wales. This would seem to me to be an admirable occasion to approach Welsh devolution and at any rate to consider a separate scheme for Wales.
As has been said on this side of the Committee, the average size of a Welsh farm is smaller than the average size of an English farm. The Welsh farm is about 95 acres. [HON. MEMBERS:


"No."] I am taking the figure from Appendix 4 of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's White Paper on the annual review and fixing of farm prices. When one considers from where it emanated, it may well be that there may be some mistake. But if we accept the figures, they seem to suggest that there are probably in Wales a number of fairly large farms coupled with a number of fairly small farms. In the table of income per £100 of rent, the Welsh figure is the second highest. It seems to me to be a great tribute to Welsh farming, and it certainly indicates that Welsh farming is of a different type from farming elsewhere.
If one looks at it from the point of view of yield per £100 per acre, seeing my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on the Front Bench, I would point out that Surrey is at the bottom of the list.

Mr. Ede: My hon. and learned Friend may recollect that the Parliamentary Secretary was a considerable agriculturist in Surrey before he took his present office.

Mr. Bing: I do not want to go through the differences between the counties, except to make the point that the great difference between the yield per £198 in Surrey as compared with £444 in Wales suggests that one might possibly have a scheme dealing with different areas in the country.
What I should like to know is the principle upon which it is decided to apply the scheme. If it is said that it is going to be applied on a functional basis, then there is an argument for dividing up counties roughly speaking in regard to their yield per £100 rent or by some such process, or in regard to the rainfall as the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested. If, on the other hand, it is decided to divide it under administrative units, I do not want to go back upon this but if there is one administrative unit which really exists that is surely Northern Ireland. On what basis do we join England and Wales to Northern Ireland, and on what basis is it decided to have a separate scheme for Scotland? We have heard nothing except what the Minister said, that there were administrative advantages in doing it all in Edinburgh.
I now come to the other aspect: what plans are there, and for what crops? Once the land is ploughed up, are we going to have an overall plan to encourage certain crops, and if so, what are those crops to be? Let me give one or two examples of the sort of thing I have in mind. If one looks at the figures for agricultural production which are given in the first appendix of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper, one sees, for example, that bread grains have more or less kept up and, in fact, are a little bit above their immediate post-war figure. Rye is doing equally well, but the rye is a very small amount of our general consumption, and this item is almost entirely composed of wheat, which has not fallen at all from the post-war figure and is not so much below the pre-war figure.
I am talking now in the first case in regard to acreage devoted to these particular crops. The proportions are, roughly speaking, the same in regard to actual production. If one looks at the production of other grains, the odd thing about other grains is the very great increase in the acreage under barley. I do not know if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is here——

The Chairman: On the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, the hon. Member can discuss only what is in the Clause. He cannot go into the details of the scheme.

Mr. Bing: With respect, Sir Charles, subsection (4) of the Clause provides for
the ploughing up of land under grass and the carrying out of further operations on the land after ploughing, the grant shall be in respect of the operations as a whole including the ploughing.
What we are really discussing here is what are to be the crops which are to be planted after the ploughing has been done, and under what terms.

The Chairman: That will surely arise when the scheme comes before the House for an affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Bing: I am sure that it will be one of the matters which we shall have a chance of discussing then, but surely we are now entitled to discuss and to get some broad general outline on whether we are going for bread crops, barley, oats, sugar beet or potatoes, or whatever line we have in mind.

The Chairman: I think not.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Sir Charles, though what we are dealing with is a Clause which provides for ploughing up, if one looks at the provisions one sees that it is not when the land has been ploughed up but when a crop has been planted in its place afterwards that there is authority for making payment. Surely we are entitled to ask what crops the Minister has in mind to put in after the ploughing up has been done?

The Chairman: I think that will all arise when the scheme comes before the House.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. The Minister has agreed to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage making it obligatory to include further stages in a scheme, that is to say, every scheme to be produced shall include an obligation to agree to particular crops. That being so, I humbly submit that the question of what crops are to be grown or what it is intended to include in the scheme is in order under this Clause.

The Chairman: That is where I disagree.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, surely it is impossible to discuss the matter if we cannot discuss what are to be the crops? Subsection (4) says:
If a scheme under this Act provides for the making of grants in respect of the ploughing up of land under grass and the carrying out of further operations on the land after ploughing, the grant shall be in respect of the operations as a whole including the ploughing.
One cannot separate that from a discussion of the Clause as a whole, because the grant we are dealing with under this Clause is payable, not after ploughing up, but after the operations as a whole, including the ploughing.

The Chairman: That is to be laid down in a scheme which will come before Parliament.

Mr. Bing: In that case, surely the scheme cannot be varied, and it is our duty to suggest to the Minister that, when he is considering this Clause, he should put in any further provisions as to what are to be the particular crops.

The Chairman: We cannot amend this Clause any further.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that, but surely we can obtain from the Minister some indication of what he has in mind? If one looks at it from its narrowest and most technical point of view, the Committee should surely be in a position to decide whether or not they are to agree to the Clause and, in order to decide that, they should know what crops the Minister has in mind for growing on the land which has been ploughed up. If he were to say it should all be barley, perhaps we should vote against it, while if he were to give it a more reasonable aspect we should vote for it.

The Chairman: That is my point. When it eventually comes before the House, they can choose. They can say that they do not want any scheme. But I think it is out of order to go into the details now.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Further to that point of order. Would not it still be in order for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) to ask the Minister what crops he has in mind? It will obviously vary from scheme to scheme and from place to place, but I think the Committee is entitled to know what schemes the Minister has in mind because, as you know very well, Sir Charles, the whole Clause deals with schemes and the making of schemes. As my hon. and learned Friend has pertinently pointed out, in subsection (4) the act of ploughing must necessarily be followed by some other operation. The subsection says that:
… the carrying out of further operations
shall go with the ploughing, and the whole shall be considered as one for the purpose of a grant. My hon. and learned Friend was doing no more than ask the Minister what he had in mind when such schemes came forward, and what kind of crops he thought should go necessarily with the ploughing in order that a grant should be able to be applied for and received.

The Chairman: I think that in a general way I should allow that, but to go into details of the special crops and to make suggestions is going too far.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I shall willingly leave the point, but I was trying to safeguard the Minister's right of reply rather than to deal with the issues which I had raised and with which I had completed dealing. Might I ask the Minister another question


about these schemes? I take it that the county agricultural committees will administer them. Can the Minister tell us in broad outline the sort of idea he has in mind? Will he deal, for example, with the contrast between Northern Ireland, where a very different position exists, and England? Who are to be the administering authority in a unified scheme when it has to be administered in two such very different areas? Would he, in particular, deal with the point of administration?
To sum up, would he give us, first of all, the grounds on which he decides that there will be a scheme for any country? He might at the same time deal with the problem of whether or not Wales is a country; and if it is decided that Wales is a country, on what basis do we decide that one country is entitled to have a separate scheme and that another country is not? Is it on a basis of the size of acreage involved in the scheme or on a similarity of the agriculture? Or is it based on a similarity in the size of the farms, or is it upon a rainfall basis, or is it merely based upon administrative convenience?
Secondly, what is the general basis— and I do not ask him to go further than that—of the type of crop he is seeking to encourage? What machinery is there, as a whole, to see that schemes are coordinated so that, over the whole area, the type of crop which he wishes to encourage is, in fact, encouraged? What are the types of local control which are to be employed in order to deal with the various local problems which are likely to arise in connection with the schemes?

Mr. Nugent: I think we have had a fairly comprehensive debate on the Question that the Clause stand part and I hope that I can cover in a few minutes the main points which have been put forward by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. First of all, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who opened the debate, asked whether I could give him details of the next scheme. At this stage I am not sure whether I should be in order in doing so, but in any event I should be giving to the Committee information which has not yet been settled. Apart from the general outline, which hon. Members have already been given through

the debates which we have had, I cannot give specific details.
The hon. Member made a point which is extremely important, that in some of the more difficult areas, particularly in the West—and that would include the Principality—and, indeed, in the West Midlands, where rainfall is high, it might not be desirable to grow increased tillage crops. He asked, are we making a mistake in giving £5 an acre to encourage it? The answer is that the £5 an acre is offered as a subsidy for farmers who decide to plough up and grow a crop, but they use their own judgment as to whether to do so, and if they consider that it would be too great a risk because of climatic conditions, then obviously they will not do it.
We are considering carefully for future schemes whether it is possible to work this subsidy in with a grant for direct re-seeding, as we recognise that the grass crop is a natural crop and that the yield will probably be greater, more beneficial and very much more sure than that of an inadequate tillage crop. But the farmer will decide on the general picture, and what we are concerned with is that so much of the grass which is down now is highly unproductive; and what we wish to do is to encourage the farmer to plough, to grow one or two tillage crops and then to put it back to better grass. Then we shall get the best of everything.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked, I think, a somewhat similar question, and developed at some length the problem of the size of farms, and, in particular, the difference, in his opinion, between the size of farms in Northern Ireland and in this country. The figures that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) gave, extracted from the Appendix to the White Paper, are figures giving certain classes of farms, and they do not intend to give what is the national average.
The national average for England is about 80 acres, and it does not vary so very greatly, although it is significantly larger than, the 50 acres or 60 acres average probably of the Northern Ireland farms. The fact is, of course, that although in England we have a fair num-


ber of such farms, the vast majority of our farms are small.
That, I think, links up with a point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) about the difference of the farm structure in Wales. It is true that it is very different in Wales from what it is in the Eastern Counties, but it is not so different from what it is in Cornwall and Devon, especially up on the moors, where there are a large number of small and difficult farms—not as mountainous as in Wales, but certainly small and difficult, with a high rainfall. I mention that because I think it does give a more complete picture.
However, to deal with a specific point that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire, Central made about the financial position vis-è-visNorthern Ireland, on which he felt particularly concerned. He felt that the Committee should be given figures, to show exactly what the amount was between the Government and the Northern Ireland Government, to see whether we were justified in giving this specific producer subsidy. I would suggest that he looks at it in this way— that this is part of the Price Review award; and the alternative to giving this ploughing-up subsidy would be to increase the end price of corn, potatoes, and so forth; and if that had been done there would have been no question of the higher price of this produce coming into account between the two Governments.
The fact is that this amount that goes to Northern Ireland in ploughing subsidy should not properly be included in this account at all, but should be regarded as an additional item of cost to the total cost of the food that we purchase from Northern Ireland, which, as I mentioned earlier, is something in the area of £25 million a year.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman has not really told us how we can make certain of getting it.

Mr. Nugent: I have forgotten whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the Committee when I gave the figures, but the figures for 1951 show that we did, in fact, receive some £25 million or £26 million worth of food from Northern Ireland, and I have every reason to believe that we shall continue to get it.

We shall certainly see if there is any massive traffic across the frontier, on the lines that some hon. Gentlemen have feared.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire further asked about milk being used for manufacturing purposes, and a query was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey). I think that there is no evidence that milk from Northern Ireland is being used for manufacture in that way. It is true it can be. As usual, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch is well informed: it could be; but I think I am right in saying that they are not doing it at present, and that all the milk they have to spare is coming here; and, in fact, in the summer—at this time of year —a large part of the milk we drink in this country does come from Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) asked why there was not a separate scheme for Wales. There is no reason intrinsically why there should not be, but we felt that conditions, geographical and climatic, although different to an extent, were not so different that we should contemplate a separate scheme.
On that, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch pressed the question of what was the basis of determining when there was a separate scheme. The answer is that we must look at the whole picture of the farming itself and of the administrative structure, and if both are broadly the same the various countries concerned may be put together in one scheme, or may be treated in separate schemes—as, indeed, Scotland is in this scheme, and as in the fertiliser scheme Northern Ireland is treated differently.
As far as possible the countries are kept together in one scheme because, quite obviously, unless there is some specific reason for setting up separate schemes there is no reason for doing so. There is no magic about it. It is treated quite empirically on what seems to be the most convenient arrangement.
Northern Ireland is administered similarly in this respect to one county in England. There is one administrative centre in Northern Ireland; they will administer the whole of the ploughing subsidy grant for Northern Ireland and will send up


applications, receive and vet them from that central authority.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North paid us a most handsome tribute, which we certainly do not deserve, but nevertheless appreciate. He rounded it off by saying that we just did not have any knowledge or information on this point, but that otherwise we were all right. We take that very kindly, but it does not leave us very much. He questioned the whole basis of the producer subsidy, and he will not, I think, want me to go into that at length again.
It is not possible to work a selective producer subsidy; and, unfortunately, it is not possible to work it on an acreage basis, to pay a bigger subsidy to a smaller farmer. It is something we have examined, but the difficulty is to decide what is a separate farm unit. We were finally defeated and we And it unavoidable to have a flat rate subsidy. I do assure him that that has been carefully looked at and it is not now presented in its present form because of lack of consideration of the point he has made.
I think that, broadly, I have dealt with the various points raised in the debate, and I trust that the Committee will now give the Clause their approval.

Mr. G. Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman and the Minister look at the small drafting point I raised? It is important and we in Wales feel deeply about it. The substitution of the word "these" for the word "three" in subsection (2) would meet the point. Will he give an assurance that he will look at that?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, I certainly will.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PERIOD IN RESPECT OF WHICH GRANTS MAY BE MADE.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert:
and for all subsequent schemes shall include the period from the first day of October to the fifteenth day of April.
This Clause provides that the first scheme to be made under this Bill will operate from 5th February, 1952. The Minister has explained to us why that

date was selected. It was because his tillage acreage was falling back. He wanted to urge people who had not decided to plough to change their minds at the last moment, and to get additional ploughing done in consequence. So 5th February was chosen as a surprise date to say, "Look here, you chaps who have not ploughed, if you will change your minds we will give you £5 an acre." I think that is a fair way of putting it. I think that the Minister will agree with me that 5th February was very nearly too late to plough grass.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) raised the question of bare farrow earlier in the debate, and I had a little argument about it with the Parliamentary Secretary. If we are to plough grass, the time we ought to plough it, and much the best time to plough it, is before the winter frosts, so that the weed roots are broken up by the winter frosts. That will clean the field for the next crop. I do not say that if we get a mild winter that it will kill absolutely everything, but, broadly speaking, if we turn up the roots to the frost that will clean the field.
It will also do quite a lot towards destroying the redworm and wireworm which will otherwise be a pest. The late ploughing of grass rather increases the wireworm and redworm risk, and it also means that the field will not be as clean, nor will there be as good a till, as if it had been turned up in time for the frost to get into it.
What I am sure we do not want is for farmers to delay their ploughing for another year, and to say, "Last year I ploughed mine in October or November. Bill Jones delayed his until February. He got £5 an acre; I did not. I am not going to be a mug this time; I am going to delay my ploughing until the Ministry say that they have not enough ploughing and put on a subsidy."
I am sure that that is something which the Minister does not want to happen. Therefore, I think that it is highly-important to say, quite clearly, "We did it this year but we are never going to do it again, and, therefore, we are making this quite clear to every farmer: if you plough early you will never again be penalised." I think it is very important that notice should be given in the Bill to every farmer.
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the present scheme has created countless grievances throughout the countryside. The man who ploughed his grass before 4th February is furious with the man who ploughed it afterwards. I do not say that it was not right to put that date or that it should not have been done, but it would be quite wrong to leave the impression with anybody that it is to happen again or that there was occasion to wait for it.
I have in my Amendment two dates which seem to cover the proper period for ploughing grassland. I do not insist on those dates, but the Minister would be well advised to put in dates covering what he regards as the best period, purely from a husbandry point of view, for ploughing grassland. He should also make it clear in the Bill to all farmers that they shall never again be penalised for ploughing grassland in the best period.
The Minister should say to the farmers, "It is too bad that you have been penalised this year, and we are very sorry about it, but do not farm badly next year in the hope that you will be rewarded for doing so, as farmers have been this year. If you plough at the right time next year you will get any subsidy that is going. There will never again be a special subsidy for people who have ploughed at a time other than the best." It is important that that should be expressed in the Bill.

Mr. Snadden: As a practical farmer, I have considerable sympathy with what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), specially in regard to frosts, for it is almost elementary to say that the best results are achieved by exposing land to frosts throughout the winter and that a very much better tilth is thus obtained in the spring.
I also realise that behind the Amendment there is probably the idea that because of the kind of scheme we have had to introduce this year there is a certain amount of discontent as the ploughing grant became applicable only in February. I realise that some of the better farmers feel aggrieved and penalised because their ploughing has not ranked for grant. Against that, a lot of land which could not be ploughed during the

winter because of severe frost has in consequence ranked for grant having been ploughed later than it would otherwise have been.
The first scheme was a special short-term emergency scheme. It was the first step that we could take as a new Government in the policy of trying to stem the fall in our tillage acreage. It is certainly intended that the second scheme which is to be put forward as part of the Government's longer-term programme shall cover the whole of next autumn and the spring ploughing season. We feel it is undesirable to include in the Bill anything so binding as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In Scotland, because of the later season, it would not be too late to plough at the finishing date in the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has entirely understood the matter. The Amendment says:
and for all subsequent schemes shall include the period… 
That does not mean that a scheme cannot start before 1st October or end after 15th April; it merely includes that period. The idea is that we must not discourage people from ploughing at the right time.

Mr. Snadden: This may be a legal question, but I am advised that it would mean the opposite of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. In any event it does not affect my argument. We do not want to be bound with dates in this Bill, because it is conceivable that conditions may arise at some future time when, for instance, for Price Review, a grant may have to be terminated at certain times. We do not feel we should like to put specifically in this Bill any particular date, because we would be bound for all time to adhere to those dates.
I think I am right in recollecting that the Agriculture Development Act, 1939, was a case in point. An argument arose then as to the advisability of putting dates into the Bill, and it was decided that it was undesirable to do so because at some future time, for reasons which could not be fdreseen, there would be a desire to alter the dates and that would mean bringing in a Bill which would be a rather cumbersome way of dealing with a question of this sort.
The hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that in the second scheme full provision will be made to cover an entire period which is what he has in mind. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his Amendment.

Mr. G. Brown: On the contrary, it is a little tiresome—and I have no doubt that Oppositions who were here before us have felt the same—for Ministers to read prepared speeches saying why they cannot accept an Amendment, and then, when it is pointed out to them that they have misconceived the point of the Amendment, say, "Well, we do not want to put it in the Bill and that is the end of it. In any case we will do it so why bother about it." That is no answer to the point. If the point is a good one, we want a specific reason why it should not be put in the Bill; if it is a bad one let us hear some argument about it.
The Minister of Agriculture has been silent on the Bill all day. I gather that so many speeches have been quoted against him that he has decided not to give any more hostages to fortune. He is not going to make any more speeches for that reason, but if it will help him I will not quote him on the Bill. It is unfortunate that he cannot get up this evening and defend his own child, but he might inform us on the subject. I personally hope there will not be another scheme. I can understand the argument for a ploughing scheme this year, but I do not like the idea of a general scheme, because it is possible that there will be included in the ploughing up far more routine ploughing than new ploughing, so that the thing becomes too expensive per new acre.
The Minister wants the power in the Bill to introduce second and further schemes, and if that is so we must have it in such a form that we know what he wants to do. My hon. and learned Friend has quite rightly made the point that we want to be sure that the men are not discouraged from ploughing up when they want to do it. The point on which the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland went wrong is that this Amendment does not state a period within which the ground has to be ploughed up to qualify, but gives a clear assurance that before the next cropping season arrives they will be covered.
9.15 p.m.
I agree very much with my hon. and learned Friend that there is much feeling in the country about this matter. Many people have followed the line which Mr. A. G. Street has been writing about vigorously in one of the farming journals, that they were caught, that they were treated unfairly, that they were mugs, as my hon. and learned Friend has put it. There is very strong feeling about it. Since the Government intend to do what we propose, we obviously want to have it stated in the Bill that every scheme shall include a period between two dates. That will leave the Ministry with all the discretion and freedom they want to make schemes as they please. They can put in the final date. I assume that there will be a final date after which ploughing up will not earn a grant. It will be a very serious matter if there is not.
All that the Minister has to do is to make up his mind what the position will be next year. I ask him not to reject the Amendment simply on the ground that somebody has written a little document saying: "Better not put this one into the Bill." There are good reasons for putting it into the Bill, and my hon. and learned Friend has given many of them. For all that panoply of weighty reasons, some from the Minister's own side, I hope that he will think about it again.

Mr. Paget: While there is a certain amount of coming and going on the Government Front Bench, I should like to explain what the Amendment means, as a matter of construction. If the Minister will look at Clause 2 (2), he will see these words:
The period specified for the purposes of this section in the first scheme under this Act for any country shall be.
Then come the words:
the period beginning with the fifth day of February.
Now comes the proposed Amendment:
and for all subsequent schemes shall include the period from the first day of October to the fifteenth day of April.
The right hon. Gentleman will note the contrast between those words "shall be" and "shall include." The larger includes the lesser.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make quite certain that the period for any future scheme shall include the best period for ploughing, from a husbandry


point of view. It may include a longer period than that, in order to cover places in Scotland where ploughing has to be later. It shall at least include the important period when ploughting has to take place. It is insufficient to come and say to us, "We shall always put that period in any future scheme," because we shall still have the man who has been bitten and irritated this time. Nobody can be so irritated as a farmer who has been made a mug of, particularly when his next-door neighbour has been smart. Pay or no pay, he will be resolutely determined not to miss the subsidy next time.
It is very important, therefore, that this matter should be in black and white in the Bill so that it can appear in all the agricultural Press. Do not take my dates. Take any dates which it is thought will cover the right time for ploughing and make it clear that the Bill provides that on all future occasions the right time for ploughing shall be included—the larger period shall be included—so that if a farmer does his ploughing during that period he will be all right for any future subsidy. It is essential that that be told him in the Bill.

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think we want these words in the Bill. It would be rather untidy to have them. Let me accept straightaway what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. Subsection (2) refers to the emergency scheme. That scheme has been successful, and I hope that I shall be able to tell the Committee how much has been ploughed up under that scheme when we come to discuss it. The Parliamentary Secretary only gave an indication of what has been achieved, which was all that he could do. I hope the Committee will agree to leave subsection (2) as it is, dealing with the one scheme only, and then we can get on to subsection (3) which deals with possible future schemes. Perhaps I shall have a word to say about that in reply to the next Amendment which may be discussed.
In passing, I would remind hon. Members that the previous administration had a ploughing-up Bill of this nature during a period of time. They did not put any date for the scheme in that Measure because of its obvious disadvantages, but in every scheme they put a specific date, as we have said we shall do here. The date chosen by the previous

Government was the calendar year, that is, from 1st January to 31st December. I am not saying that is the best date to put in, though it may be as good as any other in the circumstances of the time. However, I am certain that we do not want to clutter up the Bill with any specific date. I can give the Committee a firm assurance that as long as I have the privilege of occupying my present position, no scheme will start on 5th February again as this first scheme does, owing to the Parliamentary situation in the country at that time.

Mr. Paget: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down, could he not go a little further than that? Clearly he was advised that the Amendment had a different meaning and purpose from what he thought it had. In view of that, will he have another look at it? It may be that this is the wrong place to put it, but it seems to me important that farmers should have some assurance in this Bill that it will not again pay to postpone their ploughing.

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think it is necessary, but I am prepared to look at it on the understanding that my mind is completely open and that I do not give any promise one way or the other.

Mr. Hale: The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said definitely that there would be a scheme for next winter, which will be scheme No. 2. That throws a different light on the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary said that bare fallow is necessary in many cases and that it must be subsidised where it is required.
I doubt whether anyone would suggest in England that land ploughed about 31st May this year will be any better or any more productive in 1953, left as bare fallow, than land ploughed on 1st October of this year. At the moment the man who has rushed in to get the subsidy but who does not intend to develop this year will get the subsidy, and there is no assurance for the man who is planning to do it during the winter and during the ploughing season. That is the second misapprehension, if I may say so with respect.
The Under-Secretary said there was some doubt whether the word "include" meant "include." I have heard some argument about the word "comprise," because it has an etymological derivation


somewhat similar to "comprehend" and it means a different thing. There is no question that the meaning of the Amendment is merely that we should include a legitimate period for normal ploughing, so that, as my hon. and learned Friend says, people can know in advance what they are going to do.
We have had some talk about the area of farms. The great majority of farms in this country are of the order of less than 30 acres and are very small farms. Even now, in these times, when farming, under a Labour Government, has improved very greatly and has become a more prosperous and more successful and a better planned endeavour, there are very many small farmers who have to make arrangements with other farmers for the sharing of labour, mechanical ploughs, and so on, in order to get their ploughing done in the best way, and they have to make arrangements in advance.
Therefore, it is very important that they should know what is going to happen, that they should be able to refer to what is in the Bill or what the "Farmer and Stockbreeder" says about the Bill, which is no doubt where they will get their information from, and that they should know now what the assurances generally are. That is why we think that the matter is so very important.
The Minister has said that he will look into the questions that we have raised. It is our experience that he looks at these things benevolently and constructively and with a desire to improve, and so far as I am concerned I am grateful to him for what he has said.

Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "two years," and to add" one year."
We managed to get something out of having the Minister take an interest on the last Clause. I hope he will stay with us a little longer and will continue to take an interest, so that we may make progress with the Bill.
I ought to make one explanation so that there is no doubt about the motives for the Amendment. When we had the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Bill and were

asked to allow schemes under that Bill, we moved some Amendments to the drafting of the Bill. After listening to our arguments, the Minister very generously gave us a period of two years as the limit for each scheme, and we accepted it.
I should not like the Minister to think that since we accepted two years on that Bill, if he puts the same thing in this Bill we are being awkward about it. It seems to some of us that there is a rather different argument in this case, which can be held to make the period of one year much more important so far as the present subsidy is concerned than it was for fertilisers.
I admit the argument of those who say that we want people to use more and more fertiliser as a long-term proposition and that we want them to know that the arrangements for helping them to meet the cost will continue and that, therefore, they can place their orders in advance, make their plans, and so on. But I do not believe that the same argument ought to be applied to a ploughing-up subsidy.
Leaving out my oft-repeated views about this form of subsidy, the fact remains that, on the whole, we want the people to do now the ploughing that ought to be done. We do not want to give farmers the same sense of security about the rewards for doing it as about the rewards for using fertilisers. We want them to plough this year all that is available for ploughing, rather than to have some of it left for next year. Therefore, on the whole, the period of one year, which the Amendment proposes, is, in the circumstances of the Bill and the subsidy, justified.
I have given the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a frank explanation of how we came to our view. I hope that he will not cause us to deploy our arguments at much greater length but that he will be willing to agree that, for the purposes of ploughing-up, we want the people to do the job when it ought to be done. We ought not, as it were, to encourage them to spread the thing over and to wait until next year.
It is a little additional trouble for the Department and for the Minister to come here a little more often and to get an affirmative Resolution, but we know what happens with affirmative Resolutions. Once the first hurdle is taken, which is


usually accompanied by a lot of threats of what will happen, the second hurdle can as a rule be overcome rather easily. I do not think the Department need worry about that. I am sure that it is good practice and those of us who think it a bad thing anyway would be happier to have it dealt with on a year-to-year basis.

9.30 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I think it would be the wish of the right hon. Member that his Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 6, to leave out "two years," and to insert "one year" should be considered with this Amendment.

Mr. Brown: Yes.

Sir T. Dugdale: I listened intently to what the right hon. Member said, and I think the balance of advantage and disadvantage is very close. On the one hand, I imagine it would be very convenient, if one intended to have a scheme which could last two years, to have it in one bite because one could revoke or change it at the end of any period and come to the House with a new order varying, revoking or changing any particular scheme. But one remembers that one has been in the House a long time and hopes one is a House of Commons man, and from the point of view of Parliamentary control—which is all important—I think that, on balance, it would be best to agree with the right hon. Gentleman and accept the Amendment.
The acceptance of the Amendment will only mean that, instead of the possibility that at the end of 12 months one must come to the House for an affirmative Resolution if one wishes to vary a scheme, as probably would be the case whoever was responsible at the end of 12 months, it will be mandatory on the Minister, if he wishes to continue the scheme, to ask for an affirmative Resolution to continue it. To ensure greater Parliamentary control, which I believe to be so important in these matters, I am prepared to accept the Amendment and also the Amendment to Clause 3, which I mentioned.

Mr. Brown: We are very grateful for the way in which the Minister has met us. I am sure he has done the right thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

Mr. Paget: We are all grateful to the Minister for accepting the Amendment, but I believe there is an additional reason for accepting it other than the question of Parliamentary control. It will make the Measure more efficient. This is a Measure to get people to plough as soon as possible and if you say to them, "This scheme overlaps one year; if you put it off until next year there may not be a subsidy" they are more likely to plough this year. I think that a scheme limited to one year will get more ploughing than if we allow it to go on for two years.
For the same reason I am sorry that the Minister did not accept the earlier Amendment. Let us make it clear that it will pay no one to wait for a subsidy but that it may do the opposite and make people lose the subsidy if they do not buck up, as the subsidy will not last for more than a year.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES.)

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Austin Hudson): The next Amendment is in page 3, line 6, to insert "one year," and is similar to the one on the previous Clause.

Mr. G. Brown: Are you not selecting the Amendment in page 2, line 30, which involves an important principle, Sir Austin?

The Temporary Chairman: No.
Amendment made: In page 3, line 6, leave out "two years," and insert "one year."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, at the end, to insert:
and provided that no such variation or revocation shall alter any grant payable in respect of any ploughing up of land under grass or further operations on the land commenced prior to any such variation or revocation.
Here we are seeking to give an assurance to the farming community which they certainly need despite all that we have been saying up to now about not allowing them to think that these provisions will necessarily go on. It is a perfectly logical argument that we do not want to hold out specifically the prospect


that they will have the subsidy anyhow next year if they like to wait and yet that the Minister should have power to revoke or vary a scheme at any time. On the other hand, there should be no doubt in people's minds that that power to revoke or vary does not mean that if they embark upon an undertaking there will be a subsequent change which will lose them the cost.
I have in mind a limited class for whom alone this is justified, that is to say, small men for whom the cost of ploughing and subsequent cultivation, even at the present price for the end product, is just over the border of what they think worth while. Those are the chaps for whom the argument can be made that £5 an acre may tip the balance and make it worth their while. Those chaps also tend to be the canniest in the industry. They are the fellows who think twice and have memories of having been bitten before. I do not want to make the point too strongly, but the Minister will remember that his party got rid of the Corn Production Act.
These fellows claim to remember all that has happened in the past and they think they may be bitten. Therefore, it is important to make this provision in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that this arrangement will always be made and that if a scheme were revoked or varied exemption would be made in the case of those who have already started operations. But there is no harm in declaring that intention in the Bill. It adds no weight to the Bill and it makes the position doubly clear. It is an important assurance to that kind of farmer who, we hope, will be encouraged to plough and who certainly needs that assurance.
It is in that spirit and mood that I have moved the Amendment. I believe the words to be quite all right and that the Minister will find no difficulty at all in accepting them. I am sure that he accepts the spirit of the Amendment. Since I understand this will be the last Amendment we shall have, I hope the Minister will keep up his good record in this debate and agree to let us have it.

Mr. Baldwin: I think we ought to be quite clear about who actually repealed the Corn Production Act. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said

that this was done by the Conservative Party. My recollection is that when the Corn Production Act was passed it was supposed to continue for five years. Then a committee was appointed consisting of all parties to decide whether it should be continued, and all the Socialist Members on the committee voted against its continuation. Mr. Lloyd George was then the Prime Minister, and it was decided that the Act should continue. But circumstances were such that the price of wheat fell to an alarming extent, and he decided that he could not go against public opinion, and it was a Coalition Government, with Mr. Lloyd George at its head, which actually did away with the Corn Production Act.

Mr. Paget: I do not think we need get too political in this discussion which has been conducted in a most co-operative spirit and bipartisan way. However, one must not be deceived by the various fronts under which the Conservative Party operate from time to time. There have been a variety of names, but it has generally been composed of the same people. Ever since Peel betrayed the countryside, one Conservative Government after another has let down the farmer, and they have let down the farmer ultimately because they have been the party of the industrialists.
Labour and the primary producer, who is the farmer, are a natural coalition, and the first party from whom the farmers ever got a proper deal was the Labour Party. With the party opposite there has been a long period, for over 100 years, of continual betrayal of agriculture, and people who had the experience of the Corn Production Act do require an assurance.

Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot be quite so helpful on this occasion as on the last, but I hope that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) will, in his turn, be helpful, I accept the principle at once, but I am not quite happy about the wording of the Amendment. I give to the Committee the undertaking that I will examine the point right away, and I will put down on the Report stage an Amendment to cover the principle as it was explained by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. Brown: I certainly accept that. We know very well that the right hon.


and gallant Gentleman is always as good as his word, and we are quite happy that he should choose a form of words to give effect to this principle. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Brown: I should like to raise a point which I think is of some importance, as do some of my hon. Friends, and which we had hoped to raise at an earlier stage.
Under any scheme of this kind, and particularly one that is related not to the mere application to the land of an addition like a fertiliser, but which has to do with the actual cultivation of the land, at some stage, in defence of the taxpayer and of the agricultural community's good name, steps must be taken to ascertain what the effect has been. If we are to have power to examine and to see, first, that the job which is claimed to have been done has been done, and secondly, that it has been done efficiently, there must be some sanctions which can be imposed in a case where it has not been done properly.
In subsection (1, b)the Minister has provided for
securing that a grant shall not be made, or shall be restricted in amount, if the appropriate Minister is of opinion that the ploughing or any further operation… has been inefficiently carried out, or that adequate facilities for the inspection of the land have not been given;
I wholly agree that if a man claims a ploughing-up subsidy and says that he has both ploughed up and cultivated the land, and then declines to give the committee facilities to examine, no payment ought to be made.
9.45 p.m.
What I do not see is why any limited amount should be paid. If the chap will not allow one to go on and have a look —if he does not give one adequate facilities—one has no way of knowing to what extent the operation merits support. The fellow who is claiming public money should be made to understand most clearly that, consequent on getting any public money, he ought to allow entry upon his farm. In the case of inadequate facilities the sole provision

should be the power to disallow payment altogether. We should say:"If you will not allow us entry, there will be no payment. You do not have to admit us, but in those circumstances you cannot be given public money."
I certainly disagree with any proposal to pay half the money when adequate facilities have not been provided. That principle should also apply where there has been inefficiency. I referred earlier to my experiences when I was operating the potato acreage subsidy. Where, for instance, rows have been planted too far apart, I do not agree that the chap should be told: "You have only planted half the acreage, so we will pay only half the subsidy." If a fellow has been inefficient and has produced less than the full crop, I think he should be subject to the other powers which the Minister has. He should not have a penny of public money in recognition of having done something inefficient and having produced less than the full crop. The matter should be considered by the husbandry sub-committee of the executive committee to see what other action should be taken.
I am sorry I was not allowed to move the other Amendment; but that does not prevent me from pressing the Minister to consider the matter. I am sure that he will find that his county committees do not want the power to pay part of the subsidy. They would prefer—as we would certainly have done when I was concerned with these matters—the right to say: "If you have done the job properly and have allowed us to go on your farm, and there is no complaint against you, you get the subsidy; but if you have not done the job properly or you will not allow us on, there is no subsidy for you." There is no case in equity or from the point of view of husbandry for having any power to pay less than the proper subsidy in certain circumstances.
I hope the Minister will not be influenced by the fact that the Amendment has not been selected and will say that between now and the Report stage he will consider this matter with his advisers and will agree that it is right to tell the chap; "If you get on with the job properly, you get the whole subsidy, but if you do not, you get nothing."

Mr. Paget: I should like to add one argument in support of those which have


been advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). We know that the most that one can do is a 10 per cent. spot check. Therefore, any provisions under Clause 3 (1, b)will be provisions in terrorem.As to nine-tenths of the people, they will not have been inspected, so the provision here is to have something in terrorem.Why not make it as fierce as one can?
There is one other point which I should like to make and which was also the subject of an Amendment which you, Sir Austin, did not select; that is, that the minimum area should be a very small one. Under the present scheme it is one acre. I understand that the main idea is to encourage people to grow more feed-ingstuffs in order to get more meat, to encourage those persons who can grow some \feedingstuffs themselves to keep one or two pigs on less than an acre. As has been said, there are a great many very small farms of between 20 and 30 acres. It may be that these extra small areas of under one acre each will add up to quite a lot. I hope the Minister will consider making it a very small area as a minimum to qualify.
I understand that this is the last debate on this Committee stage and you will, perhaps, not rule me out of order, Sir Austin, if I take the opportunity to thank all three Ministers for the extremely courteous and obliging way in which they have treated us throughout the Committee stage. I feel that we have had a thorough discussion and done our work thoroughly, and I hope, too, that we have brought out to some extent the difficulties inherent in producer subsidies and have emphasised the fact that the principle of the 1947 scheme is that farmers shall work to a price and that that principle is to be departed from only in exceptional circumstances.

Sir T. Dugdale: In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about the minimum acreage, I would point out that when the Agricultural Development Act, 1939, passed through the House, it specified a minimum area of two acres in order to be eligible for a ploughing-up grant. Later schemes reduced that to one acre, which has been the minimum for most ploughing-up grants. I think the Committee can take it that that is likely to be the

minimum in schemes under the Bill, but the minimum will be specified in any scheme and it will be for the House or the Committee to discuss it when the scheme is introduced.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) raised a question which deals with administration. He has had experience of administering this system. I will certainly not give him an assurance that I will do anything in this Bill, but we will watch the point very carefully and see whether, by administration, we can help to deal with it in any way. I think he will agree that efficiency is a relative term, and the whole balance of the argument is whether we shall get the most efficient results by allowing part payment to be made or by cutting payment off altogether and laying down, "Either no payment at all or full payment." I think I have put the right hon. Gentleman's point of view fairly, and it will be given very carefull consideration in the administration of any schemes.

Mr. F. Willey: May I congratulate the Minister on making the Statutory Instrument in this Clause subject to the affirmative procedure? I am glad that he has anticipated the Amendments which would have been moved and has made that provision in the Clause. From this side of the Committee, I very much appreciate the use of this procedure, which has considerable advantages. It is much better that the Government should put down Motions for approval of Orders than that we should have to put down Motions to annul Orders, but I reserve the right to change my point of view when we move to the benches opposite.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton: There are one or two questions I want to put to the Minister in order to elicit a little more information than has so far been vouchsafed. I hope my request does not meet with the same fate as a similar request the other day, when I sought information, supported by my


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but before the information was provided, the Closure was moved. I hope that will not happen on this occasion.
The point I want to put has regard to the expenses of administration. It is made clear in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill that the administrative costs are estimated at £30,000 in the year 1952–53. It is, of course, quite understandable that, in connection with a Measure of this kind, certain administrative expenditure has to be imposed.
What I should like to know is whether this increase in the administrative expenditure arises from the further employment of civil servants by the Minister. Or will it be necessary to add to the staffs of the county agricultural executive committees? Will further motor vehicles, for example, be necessary to enable either the existing staffs or additional members of the staffs to be appointed to get round for the purpose of carrying out the necessary inspection that, of course, will have to be carried out under this Measure— even if they are inquiries in terrorem,as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out a little earlier?
I think that, as custodians of the public purse, we ought to have a little more information than has so far been given. I have no doubt that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give this little additional information for which we ask, and to which, I submit with all due respect, this Committee is entitled.

Mr. Nugent: The amount of £30,000 which has been included for administrative expenses is relatively small in relation to the total sum. Few additional civil servants will be required in the administration. It works in relatively conveniently with the existing staffs at the county committee level. I rather fancy that, practically speaking, no additional staff will be required. The greater part of the additional expense is on account of the necessary application forms which must be sent, postages, and so on, and a certain amount of additional travelling for the checking up; but, broadly, the picture is that the existing staffs will be able to cope with the greater part of the work, and very little additional manpower will be required.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Orders of the Day — MARINE AND AVIATION INSURANCE (WAR RISKS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I must ask the House to turn from ploughing the land to ploughing the sea. The object of this Bill is to deal with the insurance or re-insurance of ships, aircraft and cargoes against war risks. Let me say at the outset that there is no intention to interfere in any way with the ordinary peace-time activities of the insurance market.
What this Measure does, in the main, is to re-enact Part I of the War Risks Insurance Act, which the House passed shortly before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939, and which deals with the insurance of ships and cargoes, and of so much of Part III of that Act as relates to Part I. Part II of that Act, which deals with the insurance of goods in the United Kingdom, is not in any way affected by this Bill.
The purpose of Part I of the 1939 Act was to secure that on the outbreak of hostilities ships would not be laid up and the commerce of this island interrupted by any lack of insurance facilities. Accordingly, powers were at that time conferred upon the Goverment of the day enabling them to insure ships and cargoes in war-time, and also to cover them against what are known as "Queen's enemy risks" —to bring the term up to date—in advance of an outbreak of war if reasonable and adequate facilities for such insurance were not otherwise available.
During the late war the 1939 Act, which was passed very hurriedly by the House, was amended in certain respects under Defence Regulations. These amendments are, unlike the original Act, subject to renewal annually under the Emergency


Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. 1947, and it is this fact, combined with the need which there is for securing certain other additional powers, which is our justification for bringing the present Bill before the House at this time.
Under the Bill it is proposed to re-enact the provisions of Part I, and those provisions of Part III of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, which relate to the insurance of ships and cargoes, together with the amendments made during the war by Orders in Council. It is also proposed to seek additional powers under the Bill, first, in relation to the insurance and re-insurance of aircraft, and, secondly, in relation to the insurance of goods while in transit between ship and warehouse, or vice versa,at an overseas port. Before, however, I deal with these two points I should like to refer briefly to the two amendments to Part I of the 1939 Act which were effected by Defence Regulations during the war, and which it is now proposed to incorporate in permanent legislation through the medium of the present Bill.
The first of these gave powers to reinsure foreign ships as well as to insure them. The Regulation was made in 1940 after the outbreak of war, and, indeed, after certain friendly countries had been overrun by the enemy. It merely gave authority to re-insure foreign ships during war-time. It did not empower the Government, in advance of hostilities, to enter into an agreement for the reinsurance of foreign ships during war.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: During peace. The hon. Gentleman said "during war."

Mr. Braithwaite: It did not empower the Government—I am talking now of the 1940 Regulation—in advance of hostilities—to enter into an agreement for the re-insurance of foreign ships during war. Not during peace, but during war; in advance of the actual outbreak of hostilities, owing to the circumstances in which that occurred.
In the present Bill we are seeking power to enter into an arrangement, in advance of an outbreak of hostilities, for the re-insurance of foreign ships against war risks. But if hon. Members will look at the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 1 they will see that any re-

insurance granted in respect of foreign ships can operate only if we ourselves are actually engaged in war or other hostilities. The House will see that it is important that we should have this power to enable us to conclude agreements with foreign countries in peacetime concerning the facilities which we shall offer for the re-insurance of their ships during hostilities, so that they may know in advance that their ships can be adequately protected by insurance.
The second amendment authorises the issue of certificates of insurance instead of formal insurance policies. I think that hon. Members will recall the circumstances whereby full policies were required by two statutes which proved out of date at the time—the Marine Insurance Act, 1906 and the Stamp Act of 1891. The issue of certificates resulted in very considerable economies of staff and paper during the late war, and it was a practice which appears to have commended itself to all concerned at that time.
Let me give comfort to the House and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by reminding hon. Members that this did not result in any loss of revenue from stamp duties, because the appropriate Revenue duty was accounted for by the issue and stamping of master policies which covered large blocks of these certificates. In our view, it is extremely desirable that this power should now be re-enacted.
May I now turn to the two additional powers incorporated in the Bill? First, that to insure and re-insure aircraft. It is clearly desirable that the Government should have this power because certain British aircraft may continue to operate commercially during a future war, and it may well become necessary for the Government to provide means for their insurance or re-insurance against war risks. There is, too, the possibility that certain foreign aircraft may be taken on charter for commercial purposes, or that some foreign aircraft may be based on this country in war-time.
In either of these events, we may have to provide facilities for their insurance, and it is to that end that Clause 1 of the Bill includes authority to re-insure aircraft whether British or foreign, while Clause 2 gives similar authority for direct insurance of aircraft. Hon. Members


will, I am sure, appreciate that it would be quite unnecessary for the Government to build up two insurance offices.
I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), at the close of the recent discussion, asking whether certain additional officials would be required in connection with the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill. Here is an attempt to avoid anything of that kind. The office built up to deal with insurance and re-insurance of ships will also be able to deal with the insurance and re-insurance of aircraft, so it is unnecessary to set up a separate Department or have extra officials for the purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: As the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to me, would he explain why the administrative expenditure incurred in the operation of the Bill in peace-time is expected to exceed £7,000 or £8,000? Why is this £7,000 or £8,000 extra required?

Mr. Braithwaite: May I go on with my main interpretation of the Bill, because I want the House to be seized of the general machinery before going on to deal with points of detail? I was making the point that the insurance of aircraft would not require a separate organisation or office, and I think that the House took the point.
The second additional power incorporated in the Bill is the power to insure in war-time—and I think that that is a point of considerable importance in view of the times in which we are living—goods when in transit between the ship or warehouse or vice versaat an overseas port.
The 1939 Act authorised such insurance only in the case of goods moving between the ship and warehouse in the United Kingdom, but if we remember the far wider and more terrible range of modern warfare and the bombing of ports which becomes possible in almost any area in the world nowadays, it is only prudent that additional powers should be taken to cover goods between the warehouse and the ship in an overseas port. This additional power would be exercised only if there were evidence that these goods were not being sent forward because of lack of this insurance facility, and then only, as the Bill provides, with the approval of the Treasury.
The need for the Government to embark upon this class of insurance, that is, insurance of goods in transit, lies in the fact that the marine insurance markets of the world have arranged that the insurances which they offer do not cover goods against war risks either before they are loaded on board the ship or after they have been discharged over the side on to the quay. Accordingly, in the absence of Government insurance facilities, merchants might well feel deterred from allowing stocks of goods to move through ports in vulnerable areas or from proceeding to such ports so long as they were more liable to attack—again I stress the air weapon—than if held in their own premises.
Further, in the very early days of hostilities the goods might be lost or damaged before the merchants had any opportunity to insure them under the Government's schemes, and it is for this reason that Clause 3, which follows the terms of Section 3 of the 1939 Act, makes provision for compensation to be paid if goods are lost in transit between warehouse and ship or vice versawithin the first seven days of the opening of a Government office to undertake war risks insurance. Hon. Members will see from the Bill that this provision is applicable only in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. There is the usual machinery for the establishment of such claims for ex-gratiapayments.
There is a further change incorporated in the Bill to which I should make reference. It is the fact that throughout the Bill authority is sought to undertake insurance against any war risks. In view of the circumstances in which we might in the future become involved in hostilities, it has been considered wise to avoid the differentiations we made in the 1939 Act between so called "King's enemy risks," as they were at that time, and "war risks."
I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the difference between the two types of risk. The "King's enemy risk" is the one when this country is in a state of war, while a "war risk" is that involved in passing a ship through an area where hostilities may be taking place in which this country is not involved through any declaration of war. I do not think I can give any better example,


strange as it may seem, than the situation now prevailing in Korea where Her Majesty's Government is not, in fact, in a state of war but where the hazards are such that "war risks" exist when one is sending ships into the area.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Surely the hon. Gentleman has accidentally inverted it? The "King's enemy risk" is the risk in peace and the "war risk" is the risk in war? If he will refer to Section I of the 1939 Act he will find that by the addendum to the paragraph "war risks" are substituted for "King's enemy risks" the moment war is declared.

Mr. Braithwaite: I know that the hon. Gentleman is well informed on these legal matters, but that is not how I am advised.
In any case, the two terms are merged here, so we need not argue about it. There will be no differentiation in future because the Bill takes general powers to cover all kinds of war risks within the limits defined in Clause 10, where the term covers all eventualities. The definition of "war risks" has been drawn in broad general terms, indicating the scope of the risks which may be covered, leaving the particular risks insured or reinsured in each instance to be specifically defined in the individual contracts.
Marine insurance—this is one of the difficulties when framing legislation of this kind—is conducted in many foreign markets as well as in London and the division of liability in insurance policies as between what are strictly marine risks and war risks varies in different countries. It is therefore most desirable that the powers to be afforded under this Bill should be sufficiently flexible to enable the Department to provide for war risks in the specific terms required in the particular cases.
I repeat that the Government have no intention of interfering in any way in peace-time with the normal activities of the insurance market, but I am quite sure that hon. Members will appreciate that in time of emergency the position is very different indeed. The reason for this Bill is that it is desirable to have powers on the Statute Book now so as to ensure that the machinery of war risk insurance could be brought into operation without delay should the necessity ever arise.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is it intended to use this Bill in the present emergency in Korea?

Mr. Braithwaite: That is not the intention. What I was saying was that the situation in Korea is a curious anomaly. No state of war officially exists and it is an example of the kind of world in which we live. That is why we feel it is wise to ask the House to give us this Bill to have it on the Statute Book now in the event, which we all pray will never occur, of a much wider outbreak of warfare taking place.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) put a question to me and I would say that the small sum of money involved is to provide for any additional expenditure there may be in the setting up of the organisation machinery in the initial stages. It is a small sum and the provision may or may not be necessary. We hope not.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Reverting to the question of Korea, does the war there have an effect upon the insurance market, because presumably if it did then this Bill could easily operate under the present circumstances? I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any evidence that the war in Korea, the situation in the Canal Zone or any similar incidents of that kind had sufficient effect on the insurance market for his Department to feel that reasonable and adequate facilities for insurance were not available. That is the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

Mr. Braithwaite: The short answer is that it did not make sufficient impact on the market for a sweeping provision of this kind, and this Bill is intended to operate in the event of a declaration of war.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: If that is so I fail to understand why Clause 2 (1, b)is drawn the way it is because it lays down as power for the Minister to carry on insurance business:
During the continuance of any war or other hostilities in which Her Majesty is engaged… 
True, there has been no declaration of war, but is it not rather hard to deny that


what is happening in Korea is that they are hostilities in which Her Majesty is engaged?

Mr. Braithwaite: But it does not bring about the conditions which were envisaged for the Government to step in and act in this manner. Nothing has happened to upset the normal machinery, and that is the real point. The object is that the Bill should operate in the event of a declaration of war by this country.

Mr. Mitchison: The Parliamentary Secretary has not quite understood what I was saying to him. If he looks at Clause 2 (1) of the Bill he will see that it gives power to Ministers to insure ships, and so on. The first paragraph of the subsection deals with the difficulties of the insurance market, but the second paragraph deals with a state of affairs without reference to the insurance market at all. It says that the Minister may carry on business not only
during the continuance of any war
but during the continuance of
other hostilities in which Her Majesty is engaged".
I am asking him whether that is not exactly what is happening in Korea at the moment. If the Bill is not intended for this purpose why was it so phrased?

Mr. Braithwaite: We are getting on to legal grounds of some complexity. The hostilities referred to are those arising out of a declaration of war. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking what machinery is being used for ships proceeding to the Korean theatre, the answer is that the Government are using the method of indemnity for such ships, and that is not being done under insurance. That is the position at the moment. We are asking for this Measure to operate in the event of a declaration of war, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Mitchison: What is the difference between an indemnity on a ship and insuring it? I always thought that they were much the same thing.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Emest Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary has got through a somewhat complicated brief but he has left me completely at a loss to understand why the Bill is being introduced. He has

stated categorically that there is no intention whatsoever of interfering with the insurance market in time of peace. He has added that the Bill is not to be used in relation to the war in Korea, and finally that it will be brought into operation only in the event of a declaration of war.
In those circumstances I cannot quite see why it is introduced at this time. Why is this Bill now being given priority? If the situation is so serious that it is necessary to introduce the Bill, surely there are many other more urgent Measures for this House to consider than this one. There is a very large field in connection with war risks which might require the attention of this House in priority to this Measure if the situation were such that these matters had to be considered by the House.
Why is it necessary to introduce the Bill when the powers contained in it exist at the present time? As is pointed out in the Explanatory Memorandum, there is no doubt that under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, the continuation of the 1939 Act is possible, and that up to the present time the relevant Defence Regulations have been continued and presumably are in operation, or could be brought into operation if necessary.
When the 1939 Bill was introduced, war appeared imminent, and proved to be imminent. On 17th July, 1939, it received its Second Reading. The late Mr. Oliver Stanley, who was then President of the Board of Trade and introduced the Measure, said that it was one of many Measures, a seemingly unending series of war Measures, which the House had been considering in the previous few months.
Certainly that is not the position in this House today. We are not in the same position now as we were then. Despite the maintenance of considerable international tension, we cannot claim that an emergency exists today which calls upon this House to take these measures without giving further and serious thought to the problem of the manner in which the nation will deal with war risks in the event of war arising. As I have said, if that emergency exists today, there are far more important or more urgent measures which should be taken. If it is so urgent, the Government are acting rather against their own


beliefs, and certainly against the national interest, in other actions which they are taking.
The Chancellor in this House on Thursday last week admitted that we were running down stocks at this time. If the situation is so urgent that we now have to take steps to protect shipping in the event of war, it is not in our interests that we should run down our stocks. That action is a contradiction because, by running down the stocks, we shall make it more and more important for shipping to be available, and for the risks of the ships to be covered, as suggested by this Bill; and such action then will be even more necessary than it would otherwise be if our stocks were not being run down. It is obvious that the greater the stocks the less shipping is required.
So I want to ask the Minister what is the real purpose of this Bill and what is it attempting to achieve that cannot be achieved under the present Acts and Regulations in force? From his opening remarks it was clear that he does not propose to take any action at the present time. He said that it is not intended to interfere with normal insurance, that the Government do not propose to enter into any direct insurance. There are certainly additional powers regarding aircraft in the Bill, but that addition is hardly adequate to explain the introduction of a Bill of this type.
Is it a fact that the insurance companies are unable to re-insure against war risks today? Is that the reason for the Bill being introduced? Is it a fact that today, because the insurance companies are unwilling to insure against war risks they have come to the Government and appealed to them to carry the risk?
If that is so, one could understand the purpose of the Bill. If it is not so, I cannot understand why the Bill is introduced. It is made clear in Clause 2 (1,a) that:
at any time when it appears to him that reasonable and adequate facilities for the insurance of British ships or British aircraft against war risks, or any description of such risks, are not available… 
Is it a fact that they are not available today? I was not aware of that fact, and it does not seem reasonable that, if private enterprise is not in a position to carry the normal risks that have to be run today, the Government should

be called upon to step in and carry a risk without going into the business otherwise and benefiting from the gains. In other words surely it is another case of the Government being called upon to take the risks and leave others to earn the profits where risks do not have to be taken.
I do not see why the Government should shoulder the risk now. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the marine insurance companies do not insure goods when they are in transit from the port to their destination on land and that, therefore, if there is war risk attached to that, provision has to be made for it. Why is it that the marine companies cannot undertake that insurance at this time or that the ordinary insurance companies cannot undertake it? Is it again a question of the Government being asked to carry the burden?
I notice that in Clause 1 of the 1939 Act it was stated that if they—that is His Majesty's Government of that time—
… are of opinion that it is expedient so to do for the purpose of securing that ships are not laid up and that commerce is not interrupted by reason of lack of insurance facilities, may, with the approval of the Treasury, enter into agreements…
for carrying out re-insurance or direct insurance by the Government.
That preamble to the Clause has been dropped from the present Bill because the purpose is not quite the same. But the whole purpose of this Bill, apparently, is that if it is not possible to insure ships adequately against war risks or to re-insure against war risks the Government will do that. But if war comes, if an emergency arises, will the normal shipping operations be carried on by the private enterprise shipping companies? If an emergency arises will it not be necessary for the Government to requisition the shipping of this country?
Can we imagine that in a modern state of war shipping will go on normally and be insured in the normal way instead of the Government themselves taking the responsibility for carrying on shipping and, if necessary, indemnifying shipping companies, as is being done at present in the war in Korea? I should have thought that it would have been far better to look more closely at this problem from a wider point of view than is


done in this Bill and to tackle this whole question of war risk in the event of a future war.
Ships will certainly not be an insurable risk in the next war. It seems to me quite probable that any Government, of whatever party, will find it necessary to requisition the shipping of this country and to operate it themselves, or certainly to control it, and that the normal process of insurance will cease to exist. I agree, of course, that it is necessary to keep ships operating when an emergency arises and until the requisition has come about.
It is horrible to contemplate the losses which might arise in another war due to the use of modern weapons to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. But the losses are likely to be so great that they cannot be met in the normal way of compensation. The cost of destruction that is likely to come about probably cannot be met in the same way as it was met last time.
Therefore, it seems to me that this whole problem needs more thought and needs to be dealt with as a whole. Perhaps it might have been wiser to have waited until there could be a comprehensive review or until a comprehensive scheme could be produced rather than to rush forward this piece-meal legislation. Perhaps it is a little unwise to try to legislate now for liabilities which cannot possibly be assessed and which may be on a tremendous scale.
We do not propose to oppose this Bill tonight but we propose to give it further consideration. No doubt, after the many legal points which my hon. Friends propose to raise tonight have been examined we shall be able to see what further action should be taken in regard to it during the further stages through which it has to go.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Surely the urgency of this Bill is crystal clear in spite of what the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has just said. It is because there may at any time be an extension of the situation, not of war in the old sense of near war, but in the Korean sense, and that at that moment the market will be unable to cope with the matter. We hope it will not happen: we all think it will not happen; but it may.
When the market cannot cope with the re-insurance the powers of the Minister, which are discretionary under Clause 2 of the Bill, come into operation. It is peculiarly in the case of ships and aircraft, and not in the case of other assets such as houses, which the hon. Gentleman had in mind, for which the Bill is particularly necessary in those circumstances.
There is one point about which I should like to ask the Minister, as it was raised by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in opening the discussion. It relates to the definition of war risks. In the last war there was expensive litigation, culminating in the case known as "The Coxwold," as to what and what is not a war risk. A ship may be torpedoed and its power reduced. It may be overtaken by a tempest, and it cannot be said whether it was primarily the war risk or the subsequent tempest which was responsible for the loss, although the steering may have been damaged in the beginning.
A great deal of time and money are spent in litigation, and in the end it all comes out of the same "kitty." I would, therefore, ask the Minister to consider putting down some Amendment to deal with this point.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman says it comes out of the same "kitty." But I have found that after long, indeed prolonged litigation, nothing came from the "kitty" however steep the loss.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That may be so, but the owners have to prove war risk or marine risk, and they often fall between two stools. I think it is necessary that war risk should be more closely defined than appears in the definition Clause, and I would ask the Minister to look at that point again.

Mr. Mitchison: If it was a "kitty," why was it the same "kitty"? The Government only re-insure war risk. Surely the other was ordinary marine risk.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that when it came to the point it was marine risk which was underwritten by the Government.

Mr. Mitchison: No.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is important that this point should be cleared up. The ast thing hon. and learned Gentlemen on both sides want is that we should be involved in an immense amount of litigation, when it can be cleared up in the definition Clause of this Bill, which is a useful opportunity for so doing. I am sure the Bill is necessary, and I hope it will pass into law quickly.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Parliamentary Secretary, with whom I have the honour to represent the great port of Bristol, went quickly over the main reasons for this Bill and its predecessor. It is a fact that in a moment of crisis the private enterprise insurance market, through no fault of the people who operate it, is totally incapable of dealing with that crisis. The Minister of Transport might, when he is calculating his other transport schemes, bear in mind that private enterprise lets one down.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. AlanLennox-Boyd): As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me directly I think he might bear in mind that hostilities or a state of war create all sorts of problems for a host of people who require special legislation.

Mr. Benn: If I may answer the right hon. Gentleman and remain within the rules of order, we on this side of the House have advanced the argument, in connection with many matters that the problems of peace are as important as the problems of war, and that we should be able to organize and control the same priorities for problems of peace as for those arising out of war.
I do not want to go into that matter any further except to tell the House of a little reading I have been doing recently, which, I am sure, will be acceptable to hon. Members opposite: that is, in the City columns of "The Times." I looked through the City columns of "The Times" of the beginning of August, 1914, and of September, 1938. As is well known, on both those occasions the marine insurance market got into a state of complete chaos. The rates went up enormously—by 150 per cent.—by 1st August, 1914, over the usual rates, and in 1938——

Mr. Callaghan: Does my hon. Friend mean 1939?

Mr. Benn: —the marine insurance rate, which had been normal at, I think, Is., rose on 14th September to 2s. 6d. and 5s. per cent.; on 15th September to 30s. and 35s. per cent., and on 16th September to as much as £5 per cent. for Continental marine insurance. It was as a result of the chaos on the marine insurance market then that the Act which we are seeking to repeal and to re-enact in part was introduced in the summer of 1939. Therefore, I am able to accord perhaps a warmer welcome to the Bill than my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies).
It seems to me that this Bill is, in a limited way, a very fine piece of Socialist legislation, and I am surprised that more Members on the opposite side of the House have not risen to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. Although the Parliamentary Secretary may say that he does not himself intend to use the powers in the Bill, as he knows, he and his party will not be on that side of the House for very long: in fact it is quite possible that in Bristol the hon. Gentleman may have more personal and immediate difficulties in his own constituency. At any rate, he is today asking the House to put on the Statute Book a piece of legislation which my hon. and right hon. Friends, when they come into power, may, and, I hope, will, be very ready to use to keep the market steady, even if a state of total war has not broken out.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to get this definition of Socialism quite right. I hope that my hon. Friend is not advancing the view that it is only the function of Socialism to come on to the market in order to rescue private enterprise from its incapacity. Surely, there is also a case for Socialism making a profit out of something sometimes. There was £3 million profit from road haulage last year, and the party opposite propose to sell that.

Mr. Benn: I do not want to enter into an almost theological discussion with my hon. Friend on the function of Government in this matter. If he will allow me to reach the point that I hope to reach, I think I can prove that, although in a very limited way, this is something that we might call a Socialist Bill. It will enable us to provide very stiff competition


to private enterprise, which would have a beneficial effect first and foremost on the consumers: that is to say, those who operate the ships.
Paragraph 2 (b) of the Explanatory Memorandum gives a false impression of what is in the Bill. It simply says:
Power to insure or re-insure British and foreign aircraft against war risks.
We say, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out in an intervention, that the Minister has a great deal more power than that. He will be able at any time, when reasonable and adequate facilities are not available, to take action, during any war or other hostilities, against war risks; and Clause 10 defines war risks very widely indeed. He may take action not only against war risks, but against other descriptions of risks represented to him.
We believe that the Bill should be held open for possible use in peace-time. I have tried to make various inquiries since the Bill was introduced to find out exactly what has been the effect of the various international crises on the insurance market in London; but that is a very difficult thing to find out, because, if I understand it rightly, the marine underwriter is a man who works very much by a technical intuition based on experience, and to get comparable figures of quotations from one time to another is very difficult.
Unquestionably, the situation in Korea, Malaya, Indo-China, the Canal Zone and Trieste may from time to time make the market unstable. I was going to refer to the possibility of this sort of situation resulting in the raising of rates—a situation in which the Government are very properly enabled under this Bill, to take some action. We welcome that, and here we come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
Just as last week the Government claimed to have told us they intended to challenge the monopoly in broadcasting with competitive television, so now I hope they will be as willing to recognise that this Bill, used by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, may easily challenge the private insurance market with responsible offers of public insurance. Although I do not doubt for a moment that the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will be very loth to use these

provisions, he is giving the power to his successors.
We hope on the Committee stage to secure one or two Amendments to the Bill. Perhaps I may deal with a few points which occurred to me and to which the Minister who replies may be able to refer. First, we wish to be absolutely certain the Government are not going to run a policy of bad risks, leaving the good risks to private enterprise. To use the powers in that way would be to make it absolutely certain that this fund carried all the heavy responsibilities in a time of crisis, and would not do the job in the way we understand the Bill intends that it should be done.
I should like to see an extension of the provisions of this Bill to cover the ancillary transport services. If the hon. Gentleman will look for a moment at Clause 2, he will see that whereas in that Clause he is extending the insurance provisions to cover the cargo from its point of departure in this country to its final destination abroad, subsection (3) specifically excludes the vessels from which the goods are discharged—that is to say tankers, barges and, in the case of aircraft, the trucks which carry the goods to the aircraft.
Since the object of this Bill is to see that adequate facilities for transport are available in time of war, I think it is only reasonable to extend these insurance facilities to the lighters, for example, which are in some ways more vulnerable than the ocean-going ships themselves. They operate in home ports, and are liable to severe air attack of the kind which we had in the last war. I think there would be a very strong case for excluding the limitations imposed and for having an insurance scheme operating to cover all conveyance from beginning to end.
There is a point which I think needs special qualification. How does the present Government intend to interpret "reasonable and adequate"? Unless we know they are going to watch this point very carefully and that any fluctuations in the insurance market will call for a statement from the Minister, we shall not be satisfied that the Bill will do what it is meant to do.
We find that the Treasury has power, by signing a certificate, to prevent the House from considering the accounts of


the fund set up under this Bill. I know that that is taken from the 1939 Act, and it is, therefore, presumably customary for this provision to be made, but I hope the Government will reconsider this point and possibly put down an Amendment of their own before the Committee stage. It seems to me that an appropriate arrangement, if security enters into the matter, would be for the Treasury to make an appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and that you should give a certificate so that we could see the accounts of the working of this fund.
That would give the Treasury about as much power as they need in the working of this Bill. That a Treasury official should be able to deny the right of this House to examine the accounts of the war risks fund seems to me to be going a great deal too far. Everyone understands that in war-time, and with questions of security then arising, it would obviously be improper to release the figures of losses of ships—in time of war; but it really is a job which you, Mr. Speaker, should look after. You are the spokesman of this House, and the protector of our rights in other matters and against other possible tyrants, and I should like to see you taking up the cudgels on our behalf against the Treasury.
I do not see why that arrangement would not work smoothly—that the Treasury, when matters of security are involved, should make representations to you, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to sign a certificate. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again, otherwise the rights of this House to examine perfectly serious and important matters will be gravely prejudiced.
There is another point. What about the insurance of the personal possessions of the members of the crews of these ships and these aircraft? Clause 2 (1, e)talks about
… the insurance by him of goods consigned for carriage by sea or by air, while the goods are in transit"—
and one of the subsections deals with all the goods carried by aircraft or by ships; but no specific mention is made of the personal possessions of the crews. I do think that the Government ought to see that those people, the merchant seamen, and the airmen who fly these cargoes, in

time of war are properly covered by insurance.
Let me say one word about the financial provisions of the Bill. They are dealt with in various Clauses and will be subject to debate later on, on the Money Resolution and also in Committee of Ways and Means, and I do not want to anticipate what I had thought of saying then, but they are, to my mind, extremely unsatisfactory. I know they came straight from the 1939 Act, and the Government spokesman could say that he could blame his predecessors for them—except, of course, that his predecessors in 1939— many of them—are right hon. Gentlemen sitting beside him tonight; so that to blame the previous Government in this respect is not necessarily to blame a Government of a different colour.
If I understand the financial provisions aright, then if there are deficits in this war risks fund they are to be funded by the Treasury without consulting Parliament; and if more is paid out of the fund than is paid into it, and the premiums are not high enough, the House will, if it passes the Bill, have no way of knowing just what is going wrong with the operation of the fund. That is the first point— that deficits can be financed without consulting the House.
Second, the Treasury can raid the fund if it thinks too much money is going into it; that is to say, if the Treasury is of the opinion—or if the Minister of Transport and the Treasury together have the joint opinion—that there is too much in the fund, that there have not been enough losses to take up the premiums, they can take that money out of the fund and use it for debt redemption. The combination of those two things, that if there is not enough money the Treasury can find it without consulting Parliament, and if there is too much can use it for some other purpose, seems to me totally improper in a Bill of this kind.
Third, we find that there is no provision in the Bill whatever for allocating administrative costs as between the Ministry of Transport Vote and the income that accrues from premiums paid into the Fund. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to us something which is not in the Bill at all, and that is, how does the Ministry of Transport propose to finance its administrative costs? Will it do it by premiums


paid in, or on the general Departmental Vote? This is an important aspect for our consideration of this Bill. I think we ought to have some satisfaction on those points.
There is, of course, the question, of how the war risks themselves are to be interpreted. It is reminiscent of the problem we had of defining "active service" during consideration of the Army and Air Force Annual Act. Here we have to face the same sort of difficulty and produce a definition to meet a situation that was not considered likely in 1939. We have to face now the possibility of trouble of one kind or another—outbreaks of rebellion or of civil war—in various parts of the world, may be for a very long time. We want to be certain that the definition of war risk is adequate.
I welcome this Bill, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), and perhaps despite what was said by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). I think this is a good Socialist measure. I am proud to see the hon. Gentleman introducing it. It is a Measure of the sort which one might expect in the transitional stage. Perhaps, as one of my hon. Friends said, it is in the Socialist tradition. It is good to know that he is a reader of "Tribune," which some of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench sometimes seem not to be.
We like to see the Government putting into permanent form planning measures of this kind in peace-time, and I hope that we shall be able to expedite the Bill through its Second Reading and Committee stage.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): Like other hon. Members, I listened with great care to the Parliamentary Secretary introducing this Bill, and I think there was one sentence in that speech with which we can all agree, whatever may be our views about Socialism, the "Tribune," and matters of equal importance. The hon. Gentleman said that the Measure passed in 1939, which we are now seeking to amend by this Bill, was hurriedly passed. I think it is worth recalling that the 1939 Bill was introduced immediately after Question time, and that discussion upon it was carried on throughout almost the whole of the Parliamentary day. There was a vote at

9 or 9.30 p.m., and there was an extensive Committee stage. I am glad to have the Parliamentary Secretary's opinion that that Bill was hurriedly passed.
I am sure that we will all do our best to see that we make swifter progress on this occasion. I must confess that I thought the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the Bill in a cursory and flippant fashion. We know his capacity for aphorisms and his taste for epigrams; but for him to introduce a whole Bill of this importance in a speech lasting a few minutes, without even attempting to deal with the main reasons for the Bill's introduction at present was not giving the House a full and adequate view of the Government's intentions. I think one might say that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was the shortest on a great subject since Gettysburg.
When the War Risks Insurance Bill of 1939 was introduced into the House— that is the Measure which the Parliamentary Secretary said had been hurriedly passed—it was introduced by the late Oliver Stanley in a speech lasting one hour and 10 minutes. Mr. Stanley had a greater gift for pithy and concise expression than any present hon. Member. If it took him that time to introduce the Bill in 1939 I think we can say that we have had an extremely short speech tonight. It would have been better for the whole course of the debate if the Parliamentary Secretary had dealt with the matter more fully, and had sought to cover some of the points which have arisen subsequently.
I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). Why is it necessary to introduce this Bill? We had no explanation of that aspect from the Parliamentary Secretary, although we had an explanation from the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that the Bill was urgent because it might deal with matters which are not incorporated in it. He referred to the Korean war, but we have been told that that matter is not covered by the Bill, so that the explanation offered by the hon. Member for Darwen for the urgency of the Bill is not relevant at all.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I said it was because there might be an extension of the war in Korea.

Mr. Foot: But the implication is that as the Bill stands the situation would not be covered. Presumably, if there were an extension of the war in Korea it would be an extension of the same kind of war as that which is now going on; and as the present war is not covered, then it would have to be a different kind of war, and differently defined, if it were to be covered by the Bill. I do not see how it can possibly be said that the war in Korea would not be covered, but that an extension of it would be covered. There would have to be a very much bigger change in the wording of the Bill if such an extension were to be covered. If the main purpose of the Bill is as the hon. Member for Darwen suggests, then that should have been incorporated in the Measure when it was put before the House and the Parliamentary Secretary should have stated that that was the reason for the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) is now in league with the Parliamentary Secretary, which seems to be highly dangerous. If my hon. Friend looks at the top of page 2, in line 3, he will see that it mentions not only
the continuance of any war
but also any
other hostilities in which Her Majesty is engaged.
Is it not a case that the Korean war might well be construed, as the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, as
other hostilities in which Her Majesty is engaged.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend are wrong on this occasion and that the hon. Member for Darwen is right.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful for that elucidation, even if it comes by roundabout means, and I do not want to pay compliments to the Parliamentary Secretary in any way, except this one—that I believe he understands at any rate this Clause. I believe that his interpretation is perfectly correct, because if the main intention of the Bill is to cover a situation which might arise in the near future— we all hope it will not—of an extension of the war in Korea, then it seems to me that we shall need a very much closer and more careful definition.
If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) says, the phrase
any such war or hostilities
covers an extension of the war in Korea, then I think we must go very much further. We have already had it explained to us that these words do not cover the war in Korea. The hon. Member for Darwen, who rushes to the defence of the Parliamentary Secretary, believes that the activities in Korea would be covered by the Clause, and that is precisely why he was enthusiastic about the Bill. In other words, he is enthusiastic about the Clause on account of a purpose which the Parliamentary Secretary has said is excluded from the Bill.
I hope we now have the matter clear, both that the situation in Korea is excluded——

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Foot: I thought there was agreement about that, except with the hon. Member for Darwen. One of the reasons why there have been these difficulties is that the Parliamentary Secretary thought the way to get the Bill through the House was to make the briefest possible speech. We shall have to wait until the end of the debate to know whether the Government think the situation in Korea is covered and whether an extension of hostilities in the Far East would be covered. We are to be left until the end of the debate before we discover what are the Government's views on these matters. In my view, that is not calculated to put the Bill through with the maximum speed. I think the Parliamentary Secretary was clear at any rate on this point.

Mr. Callaghan: Clear, but wrong.

Mr. Braithwaite: Perhaps I am blameworthy to this extent, that I was not as clear as I might have been about the Korean situation. This Bill could be used in certain circumstances, but the point I wanted to make—and perhaps I made it incompetently—was that at the moment there is no commercial trade going on in the area and it has not been necessary so far to do more than give indemnity to ships which carry Government cargoes to that area. Where there is an indemnity no premium is


involved. On that point I apologise if I made a mistake.

Mr. Foot: That is the explanation on which he has been corrected. What I was pointing out was that the Parliamentary Secretary used these matters as an illustration. He referred to Korea as an illustration and the hon. Member on the other side said that the whole purpose and the reason for the urgency of this Bill is precisely because it deals with this situation. AH I can say is that if this is the reason why this Bill is so urgent and if this is overwhelmingly the reason why—which was the only point put by the hon. Member—surely that should be the reason given by the Government. But if that is not the Government's view, then we have no explanation from the other side as to why this is urgent.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the hon. Member not distinguish between the situation today and as it might be tomorrow and that though commercial trade has not been interfered with, that is not to say it may never be interfered with? That is a dangerous situation which any prudent Government must guard against.

Mr. Foot: If that is so, that should be stated in the Bill—that some conceivable extension of hostilities in the area would be covered by the Bill; but on reading this Clause I do not believe it is covered.
The only defence of the introduction of this Bill came from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He made a very good defence of the Bill—although most of the points on which he thought it a good Bill were points that he will introduce during the Committee stage and, therefore, his compliments to the Government were altogether deserved. As for complimenting the Government for introducing the Bill, they have obviously introduced the Bill not only for reasons very different from those approved of by the hon. Member opposite but very different from those approved by my hon. Friend.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East that it is extraordinary that this Bill is being introduced at the present time. I do not think it can really be said that this Bill is urgent; certainly, we have had no ex-

planation as to why it is urgent. All I can say is that if this the most urgent Bill which the Government have to introduce and if it is really necessary for them to initiate the Second Reading of a Bill of such importance at 10 p.m. to get it through, it certainly justifies—if any justification is needed, and I do not think it is—the same careful consideration given by my hon. Friends to the other Bills introduced into the House lately.
It is not often that we have a Second Reading of the Bill introduced at 10 p.m. Let us imagine the conversation between the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, the latter lolling there most of the week and saying, "Can we fill out time?" This is a new kind of event in Parliamentary affairs, a kind of legislative filibuster to try and spin out the time of the House of Commons. There is the Finance Bill to get through this week, but at any rate, say the Government, let us get the Marine and Aviation (War Risks) Insurance Bill through, because there cannot be anything more important than that.
Because we could not understand the urgency with which the Bill has been introduced we all came to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, expecting some concrete reasons. We heard not a word. So it comes to this: the Government have scraped the bottom of the pigeon-holes for this Bill. I hope that that will be understood by the Press and everybody else if any suggestion is made that the House is being kept up late at night. The reason is that the Government, possessing many powers already, wanted to introduce an amendment to a Bill dealing with war risk insurance —mere refinements of the powers they might need in the event of a third world war. The House is kept up tonight because the Government consider this to be one of the most urgent Bills to deal with after the recess.
After such an exhibition by the Leader of the House, who is not even here, there can certainly be no complaints if the Measure goes through with more comment than the similar Measure in 1939. The Bill deals with compensation for people who suffer loss during war. There are many of my constituents who justly feel that they have not been legitimately paid for losses suffered in the last war.
Many are still arguing with the War Damage Commission. Many have been unable to get proper compensation for houses smashed by bombs 10 years ago. There are many in the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency who suffered similarly. I do not expect the Minister of Transport to take much account of this matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Why not?

Mr. Foot: Because the right hon. Gentleman comes from an unblitzed constituency.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is a constituency where there are a large number of road hauliers who are still awaiting payment as a result of Bill passed by the last Government.

Mr. Foot: We shall have plenty of opportunity of discussing that. If the Minister was so concerned about that, he might have suggested that a Bill to deal with the subject should be introduced before we had to deal with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Even for a Second Reading discussion, this is getting a little wide.

Mr. Foot: I must apologise, Sir, I allowed myself to fall into temptation, but I shall not be misled by the Minister again.
I was reminding the Parliamentary Secretary that there are many people who are still suffering from the failure to be compensated properly under insurance schemes in the last war, and that it seems odd that we should be introducing at this time this hypothetical Bill for dealing with losses in a future war. But there is a further ground upon which I believe we could have had a much fuller account of the present situation from the Parliamentary Secretary. After all, under the War Risks Insurance Act, passed in 1939, which we are now seeking to amend, although there are many people who in my view have not recovered proper compensation for their war losses, there are other people, particularly the owners of property dealt with under this Bill, who did receive very considerable compensation.
Take shipowners. They received very considerable compensation under the Act

of 1939 for the losses they suffered. I am not saying that they are not perfectly entitled to it, but, surely, when we are re-enacting a scheme to meet what may happen in a further world war at least we are entitled to have an account of how it worked in the Second World War. How does the scheme passed in 1939 look like in 1952? In 1939, when we passed that Measure after four hours' discussion, almost every speaker said that it was very difficult to estimate what the losses might be, and how the scheme might work out.
But in one sense, although not entirely, we are not suffering under that disability today for the simple reason that at any rate we have the experience of how the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, has worked out in respect of shipowners and cargoes. One might have thought when we are asked to pass this urgent Measure in such extraordinary circumstances we would have had some account of how the Act had worked and whether the scheme was a paying one from the taxpayers' point of view. I believe it would be discovered that the original Bill paid handsomely from the point of view of the shipowners and badly from the point of view of the State.
Surely it should have been the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some explanation? Everyone knows, and is glad to know, that the British mercantile fleet is more modern now than in 1939. It has practically been rebuilt since the end of the war, a most spectacular achievement. That means that a lot of shipowners who had old ships before the war now have new ones. Did they pay the difference, or did the State? Is it a fact that a great number of owners who lost ships during the war got back more valuable ships? How much did the taxpayer have to pay? Is it not right that in a Measure like this we should be given some financial statement as to how these details have worked out? Surely we should be told whether things are going to happen in the future as they appear to have happened in the past?
I do not know the exact figures, but I should guess that whereas before the war the number of old ships was, in proportion to the total of the British mercantile fleet, about 30 or 40 per cent. it must now be down to 15 or 10 per cent. There has been a dramatic change. I know there


have been some complaints by shipowners about the way they have been compensated. I believe some were compensated as late as 1948 or 1949, and they complain that if they had been compensated in 1945 or 1946 they could have got a little more out of it because of the increase in costs.
If that is the case it proves my case all the more, because they are saying they have the right to pick the exact year they could claim on the insurance fund. Of course, it is not an insurance fund at all. It is a method of compensating the shipowners. I am not opposed to that in some respects although, as I have said before, it is a strange way in which we deal with these matters so that there is much bigger compensation for property than there is for loss of life.
But if we are going to deal with a Measure of this nature it would be much better from everybody's point of view, from the taxpayers' point of view and from the point of view of the House of Commons and even from the point of view of the Government, that instead of thinking that they can put down a Measure of this kind at 10 o'clock at night and rush it through, and telling the Parliamentary Secretary, who is not given to brevity, that he must gabble off his speech in five minutes, if the Government gave to the House a full explanation of this Measure. If they did that they might find that business would go through a good deal quicker.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This is really a Measure re-enacting what was carried on during the last war and, to some extent, during the 1914–18 war when the Government had and used power to reinsure against marine risks. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that there is really no reason whatever for introducing a Measure of this sort at 10 o'clock at night; and I doubt very much whether there is any particular reason for introducing this Bill now.
I shall come to that in a moment, but I should like to say first that I regret that more consideration has not been given to the Measures which it is proposed to re-enact. The most significant thing that emerged during this debate was the Parliamentary Secretary's statement about what is being done now about Government cargoes going to Korea. He told us that

the ships carrying them are being indemnified. I put it to him that that was much the same thing as insuring them but he did not assent.
It may well be—and I hope that whoever replies to the debate will tell us— that there is no premium being paid for the purpose and that indemnity is being given to some extent to those ships because they are carrying Government cargoes. For some time past some large ship owners in this country have carried their own risk. That means, of course, that in addition to providing for other expenses for running their ships they set up an insurance fund of their own.
I have often wondered why that has not been done, at any rate during wartime, in respect of Government ships and cargoes and why there has been this constant reliance upon the facilities of the market when the scale on which the Government necessarily work in war-time is quite large enough to allow the Government to do their own insurance business themselves and to set up their own fund without any reliance upon the market at all.
It is true that this Bill gives most sweeping powers. How sweeping they are I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary has not yet realised. I shall point them out to him in a minute. But the point is that in practice there has been constant reliance upon the market and quite insufficient effort made to organise an insurance business linked, as it were, to the business of ship owning and ship chartering and the carrying of Government goods, which any Government are bound to carry on during the war. That is a perfectly general point, but I wish it had been considered now in time of peace when one has an opportunity of considering these things and there can be no question of doing things hurriedly.
In short, I feel that the Government, as perhaps one would expect from this Government, have been somewhat unimaginative in re-enacting war-time legislation with only minor modifications. They might have taken this opportunity to reconsider the whole position, and might have borne in mind in that connection, that the arrangements which prevailed at the beginning of the last war were substantially different and better than those in the 1914 war; none the less


those arrangements were modified and extended considerably during the last war itself.
If I may turn for a moment to the question of the powers given by the Bill, I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary himself quite realised, or certainly has not told the House, how sweeping they are. I call his attention, and that of the House to Clause 2, which gives the Minister power to carry on business
under and in accordance with all or any of the following provisions of this subsection'
and I quote paragraph (b)
during the continuance of any war or other hostilities in which Her Majesty is engaged, for the insurance by him of ships and aircraft (whether British or not);
Let us see what that comes to. There is not the least doubt at the moment that there is "war or other hostilities in which her Majesty is engaged," not only in Korea, but actually in other parts of the world; more particularly when one looks at the wide reference of hostilities which the Parliamentary Secretary has already given us in Clause 10 (1) the definition part of the Bill. There is, therefore, not the least doubt that at present under this Bill, as, I may point out under the previous legislation, the Minister has power not merely to insure against war risks, but to insure ships and aircraft at any rate whether British or not against any risk whatever.
I am very glad to see these powers given. All I would like to see is whether they are going to be used or whether the kind of half baked—if I may use the phrase—arrangement that the Parliamentary Secretary indicated just now with regard to ships going to Korea will operate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did mean that the powers were being used. He declined to assent to my suggestion that that is what is happening. We ought to be told what use is being made, or is proposed to be made, of these exceedingly sweeping powers. I am glad to see they are there, but I wish they had been rather wider.
The Minister ought to consider, before putting the Bill before the House at this late hour, whether insurance through the market was the best way of dealing with this matter when the responsibilities of the Government as regards ships and

cargo are as much as they are bound to be under present conditions, and to a lesser extent, of course, as regards aircraft. What is interesting to see is what has been done by way of additional powers, and these are accurately summarised in the memorandum. I appreciate aircraft insurance being added. There is no doubt it ought to be.
I shall have another word to say of the "goods warehouse to warehouse" provision later, but it occurs to me that the real reason why this Bill is being introduced now is so that some re-insurance arrangements can be made. That is the only thing it seems likely that is going to be done, short of complete and open war. That is, of course, the first of these additional powers. That is in paragraph 2 (a)of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, and what it is intended to do—and the Bill gives power to do it—is to conclude certain re-insurance agreements which could not otherwise be concluded until an outbreak of hostilities has occurred.
When we come to the re-insurance agreements, I want to call attention to Clause 7. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary, quite insufficiently, that that Clause really related to the practice of issuing certificates. It is true that in subsection (1, c) there is a reference, and a pertinent reference, to certificates. But there is another purpose in the Clause, and one that ought to have the Government's attention.
At present, the vast majority of reinsurance business in this country is done under agreements that cannot be enforced at law because they cannot be stamped; and the Clause is required to validate for these purposes re-insurance treaties, as they are commonly called—re-insurance agreements—which are the common practice in the City of London.
As long ago as 1929—I am exceedingly glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present—Lord Atkin pointed out in the House of Lords that re-insurance as practised in the City of London was an illegal business, because no Government would make up its mind to do one of two things: either to say that this shall be exempt from Stamp Duty, or that this shall be stamped at such and such a rate.
The practical difficulty, as, I am sure, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury


knows, is that the ordinary re-insurance agreement does not contain a definite sum in it. It is simply an undertaking to carry the whole or a certain part of the risks insured, and for that reason it is not a policy. It is, therefore, not a valid agreement of insurance, and, incidentally, it cannot be stamped.
This opportunity ought to have been taken not merely to validate these particular agreements specially, but also, if we are bent on economy, and if we are bent on sensible business agreements and not carrying on an exceedingly important business in an illegal form, to put this matter into order. It has remained a real disgrace to one Government after another ever since 1929, and just because it is a small thing and the practice has grown up, it has never been put right.
Now, we get in the Bill a Measure for putting it right only in certain cases. It is something that ought to be attended to, and I commend to the Minister, to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the observations that were made with regard to it as long ago as 1929. I ask them whether, instead of validating for a particular purpose these particular agreements, they could not have taken this opportunity to put the matter right as a whole.
I have one other objection to take to the Bill. The effect of that Clause is to validate certain agreements without having them stamped. That is to say, the effect of it is to save the insurers a certain amount of money that they would have had to pay on a re-insurance contract by way of stamping. There is a similar provision in Clause 3, where there are transitional provisions, roughly speaking, for goods damaged on arrival in this country shortly after the outbreak of war.
This is supposed to be a Bill about insurance. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in his place, and all that the Bill provides for is that compensation should be given without any payment at all being made for it in respect of war damage in that specific case. Why should there be no payment for stamps in the one case, and in the other case no payment of a premium for entitlement to this compensation?
I suggest that the Government, which sets out a claim to being a Government

minded for economy, should be a little more economical when it has to deal with the business community, and should not stick into this, and other Bills, provisions for giving them in particular certain advantages without payment, which are not available to the rest of the country. I regard that sort of thing, although no doubt not of glaring importance in itself —not a large and obvious matter—as rather significant error which should never have been allowed to occur.
While I agree that something what is intended in this Bill has to be done— and quite obviously it is not a Bill that can be opposed on Second Reading—I think it is a pity it did not receive further consideration beyond the particular scope of the war-time legislation, which has only had slight additions made to it here. It is a very great pity that what is after all a rather complicated, difficult and complicated Bill was introduced at 10 p.m., with the result that we have not got time to consider it carefully, and was introduced in an extremely cursory speech by the Parliamentary Secretary. It really did not seem to me to indicate that he had considered what was the scope of the Bill at all.
I think it is a pity that, when one comes to look at it, one finds the sort of technical objections which I have just mentioned. It validates certain contracts for narrow purposes without looking at the problem as a whole and in that and one other particular it gives one class of people, who are not particularly entitled to any free benefit, a benefit which they will have without paying for it at all, when, as the Member for Devonport indicated, just now there are a lot of people who, in matters of compensation, feel they have had rather short shrift. Why at this point give extra benefit to the rather well-to-do classes of people likely to be affected by this Bill?

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not claim any authority to speak on this matter. My hon. and learned Friend for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) does speak with very great authority on matters of marine insurance, but I have one or two small matters by my side at the present time, and I have been checking up a few points in the documents. I should like to say one or two words on this point with all due humility.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to "King's enemy" insurance and war risks insurance. There is nothing perfectly recondite in either expression. You can have King's enemy insurance in time of war and war risk insurance in time of peace, because an insuring country or other countries may be at war, and you are covering these risks. Somewhat curiously Clause 1 of the 1939 Act did use that terminology. It said that they would call them all King's enemy risks in time of peace, and when war came they would substitute the words "war risks." The scheme was formulated in 1935 for the first time at the time of the Abbysinian war, although it was never put into formal execution until early in 1939, when some agreements were entered into in advance of the passing of the Act on July, 1939.
Then we come to the very interesting question of whether the Bill is any use today. The Parliamentary Secretary told us it does not apply to the present emergency, but in certain circumstances it could apply; at any rate it was not the intention of the Government to apply it. That was quite implicit in the memorandum of the Bill which shows the expenditure under the Bill would be £7,000 or £8,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), making one of his rarer contributions to debate, worked himself into passionate enthusiasm because the urgency of this Bill was rendered acute, he said, by the emergency in Korea, and he seemed convinced that somehow or another something was going to happen which would make this Bill a matter of great urgency and of great necessity and of wide operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) expressed the view, on a reading of the opening words on page 2, which ought to be qualified by a reading of the closing words on page 1, which are also material in this connection, that, on the whole, it could apply to Korea; but, of course, it could only so apply subject to the approval of the Treasury, as, indeed, almost everything we ask now has to be. It is fair to say, therefore, that if the Minister of Transport thinks so, and if the trade thinks so, and if the Treasury approves, it could, perhaps, be applied.
But that really does not present any explanation whatever of why, at 10 o'clock at night, we should suddenly be asked to consider this Measure at a time like this, when unemployment and poverty are rife, and we have vital problems to deal with. It is frightening, in those circumstances, to be asked to spend a considerable time discussing this rather hybrid Measure. It is a hybrid Measure indeed, if not in the technical sense, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in an exceedingly able and eloquent speech, referred to it as a Socialist Measure— an observation which incurred, I will not say the ire, but at any rate slight criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East.
Let us face it. It is hybrid in this sense, that it does, of course, represent a very typical Tory attitude—that the profitable sector of private enterprise should be left to private enterprise and that the unprofitable sector should be borne by the taxpayers of the country—the policy of the Tories in relation to transport and insurance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East—I think his remarks are important—that, at least, this Bill gives us a skeleton of a policy for taking over the motor insurance, which we ought to take over, and which is one of the profitable sectors of insurance. It may be that the experience of working this Bill will help us to introduce a further measure of Socialism when the Labour Government is formed in a few months' time.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen made, I thought, a cogent and effective reply to his own statement, that this would apply in an emergency that might occur if any expansion—and we all pray that it will not—were to occur of hostilities here or there, because he went on to refer to the case of the "Cots-wold." It was generally ruled or'laid down that it was taken as a principle that to sail from one peaceful port to another peaceful port was not encountering war risks, except in special circumstances.
I want to be fair about this matter, because I think it is very important. This question of war risks to be insured is a matter of vital importance, and I was rather surprised at the taciturnity dis-


played by the Parliamentary Secretary, which left us devoid of much of the information that would have enabled us to form a judgment as to the extent to which war risks were interpreted in the last war. But my hon. Friends will recall that we rely for most of our law upon this matter upon the famous name of Samuel Thomas Evans, which brings, even into the law courts, a tang of salt and a whiff of sea air—the name of that most distinguished of the Presidents of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and probably the most distinguished Admiralty lawyer since the great William Scott of 100 years before.
It is true, of course, that most of the vital decisions were taken in the First World War when conditions at sea were somewhat different. Certainly, the methods of convoying, and so on, had altered in the intervening years, I apprehend that it may well be that one of the reasons why so many contested actions took place in those years, and so few, comparatively speaking, in the years from 1939 to 1945, was the fact that, in many respects, a fairly generous interpretation of war risks insurance in 1939 was being applied by the Government, so that opportunities for controversy did not so frequently arise.
Apart from questions of how far we are to make these fantastically large presents to shipowners and not make them to sailors or merchant seamen, or insure their own property, it is fair to say that when we are going to cover a risk it is right to say what the risk is. People are entitled to know, so that they do not have to go to the courts time after time to find out. We are still using in this Bill a series of archaic and somewhat recondite terms—recondite in that they are obscure. "War risks" is one of them.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House, because I am interested in other matters which have to be discussed, but I want to mention two cases which seem to me to be of vital importance. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will recall the case of the "Petersham." It was, if I remember rightly, carrying pig iron from Spain to Bilbao during the 1914–18 war. It was travelling at night, and at speed, without lights because of the war and the fact that the vessel was in dangerous waters, and because those

were the instructions given to that type of shipping by the Ministry of Transport.
The vessel came into collision with another ship travelling in the opposite direction, also travelling at night without lights on the advice of the Minister of Transport. The "Petersham" was sunk. I would have thought that there could not have been a more obvious war risk; but if I remember rightly the King's Bench Division, the whole of the Court of Appeal of the Admiralty Division, and a unanimous House of Lords decided that it was not a war risk within the meaning of the Act.
It was decided that it was a normal marine risk on the basis, if I remember the wording correctly, that where the loss was due to the elimination of a peacetime precaution, or to the displaying of some precaution laid down for peacetime to a less degree, that did not automatically make it a war risk; that displaying such was a normal peace-time precaution, and that this was a display of rather less precaution than in peacetime, and was not ipso factoa war risk.
I think that that is still the law. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary is able to say that it was not the practice of the Department to interpret it so during the last war. He could have given us a little more information in his speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know."] I do not suspect that he does not know. My recollection is—I am quoting the title of a book—that he is something in the city.
Therefore I take it that these are matters of almost day to day knowledge to him. The other case I wish to mention was that of the "Matteana." This vessel was going in convoy from Alexandria during the same war. The case went to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords about 1921. The vessel was travelling in convoy in dangerous and narrow waters, and under the instructions of the commander had to pursue a zig-zag course.
Travelling precisely in accordance with these instructions, which were given by the naval officer commanding the convoy, the ship went on to rocks and became a total loss. Their Lordships disagreed for some time, but, finally, by a majority of three to two in the House, it was held that the loss was not a war risk. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) looks a little disturbed; I am talking about the F.C.S. Clause—"Free of Capture and Seizure"—which was standard about that time. The result was that there was no chance of recovery, and in some cases there was no chance of recovery from what the hon. Member for Darwen somewhat elegantly called the kitty—from an insurance fund.
We shall try to improve the Bill as the Committee stage proceeds. This is a Measure about which we might adopt the important suggestion which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) made in another debate a day or two ago—try to table Amendments which would put the Bill into intelligible language, if that could be done for once. That might be a very substantial endeavour in a matter of this complexity, but if we do not have to sit up on other matters, and if we have time, we will try to do it.
I want to touch on the very important point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering on Clause 7. I think it was in the 1939 Bill, about Clause 18, that provision was made for this extraordinary relief from Stamp Duty. It says that most agreements referred to in the Bill shall not be liable to Stamp Duty and that re-insurance agreements and others shall not cease to be admissible in evidence by reason only of the fact that they are not adequately stamped and so on.
Surely this is setting a very bad example. It is not correct and it cannot be good law and it cannot be common sense that there should be one law for Her Majesty's Government and another, and more stringent, law for the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. It is nonsense that that should be so, because the provisions of the Stamp Act of 1891 can operate with great hardship. Sometimes the person who produces an unstamped document has nothing to do with the lack of stamps. Sometimes there is no blame whatever on the person who has to seek to establish a right by documents which include a document which has not been stamped. Yet there is the liability to a penalty in addition to the amount involved, and the penalty can be very substantial.
We are very much concerned about this suggestion that the Treasury, who

have to approve everything, should be exempt from the duty. I know the argument—the rather pathetic argument— which can apply to a Post Office (Monies) Bill or a Post Office (Amendment) Bill or a Railway Transport Charges Bill— that to some extent the money goes from one pocket to another; but this is, nevertheless, a very unfortunate phrase.

Mr Mitchison: I suggest that what really happens is this. When we validate these agreements the insurer is relieved from paying the stamp on the re-insurance contract and is, therefore, relieved from making what ought to be a contribution to public funds.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. I would qualify that by saying that as far as I recollect the Clause—and, unfortunately, I have lost my index to the Bills for discussion—it deals only with insurance contracts which are made at one end with the Minister or within the purview of the Clause.
In other words, if the Minister effected a re-insurance agreement it might well be that the original insurance of the ship could be included. That would be arguable, but in general—and I think my hon. and learned Friend will correct me if he can find it in the Clause—it applies only to contracts in which the Minister is involved in one way or another or contracts in respect of which the provisions of this Bill apply.
Now we come to some of the financial provisions of the Bill. We are told that the preliminary cost of operating the Bill would be £7,000 or £8,000. I do not know whether that means—and no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us —that when he introduces the new Bill that repeals the old Bill, that he carries forward the old expenditure as the new expenditure. It may mean that the same people will have to be employed as the skeleton staff required to operate the narrower provisions of the Act of 1939.
I hope it does not mean an increase: I would challenge the need of establishing a new staff to administer a Bill of this kind, particularly when it is said that the moment a certificate is given, and they want to operate Clause 2, the increase will be £70,000 or £80,000 instead of £7,000 or £8,000. The figures are so curiously similar that one imagines that there must have been a multiplication by


ten, for there is an extraordinary resemblance in the figures.
Now I come to the main point of the Bill. It always has been a matter of very serious criticism and, indeed, of emotional feeling all over the country that in a case where, of two small shipowners, one, on the outbreak of war, decided to "pack up" and go to the front and the other decided to stick it out, and in the course of the war rendered very useful service and did exceedingly well, in the one case the man comes back with a broken leg and is not covered while in the other he comes back and is fully covered and is compensated in every possible way for every out-of-pocket liability.
Why do we always regard the loss of property as one of those things that must be regarded as worthy of the fullest and most generous measure of compensation? Why do we always regard moral and physical damage as the thing that we compensate least? We have always done it on that scale. That has always been so, right down from the compensation paid to the wealthy man for the loss of office—and this is one of the most wicked examples of that.
So far, we have not been told of the premium that would be paid. One of my hon. Friends referred to the fact that in the opening stages of the Bill in 1939 the late Mr. Oliver Stanley, whose loss the House and the nation genuinely deplores, made a very good speech indeed. He then said that that Bill was intended to cover 80 per cent. of the ships and that 20 per cent. would be left uncovered. Is this 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. cover? To what extent does it cover consequential losses? To what extent does it cover the personal property of the crew and the members of the merchant shipping service, who in general seem to have had a much worse deal in the last war than the shipowners or shareholders in shipping companies? The Parliamentary Secretary should take us into his confidence on these matters.
There is a further important point. So far as I have been able to learn in the course of Library research, the House has never been told in any detail what this Bill cost us during the last war. What compensation was paid and how was it based? I say that the House has never been told with apprehension, because

although I have sought in vain for this information it is surely impossible to conceal what must be a considerable expenditure. Why is there not in the Library a report of what was paid in premiums and what was paid out in losses?
That is important because the Bill, after deciding that the Treasury is the sole arbiter when it shall come into force, goes on to make a sloppy generalisation about the submission of the accounts to this House, and adds that when the Treasury think they should not be produced they need not be produced. This is an example of the censorship mind. It reminds me of an occasion in the last war when I was decanted on York platform at 2 a.m. and the name had been taken from every platform; but nobody had removed the cathedral that stands 200 yards away. Censorship can go to fantastic lengths. After all, the sinking of ships in the last war was fairly accurately known all over the world, and this Bill covers compensation to foreign owners of ships.

Mr. Mitchison: Would it not go some way to meeting my hon. Friend's point if we were told what is the sum which, at the commencement of this Act, stands to the credit of the "kitty"? The "kitty" is described at rather greater length—we might call the sum the ante-in 51 (a) (ii).

Mr. Hale: I think the ante might have been raised before we can operate this successfully. But this Bill—I believe like the 1939 Bill—provides that the moment in credit is bunged into the Treasury and applied to the reduction of debt. If my hon. and learned Friend doubts it, let us say there is a doubt. My reading is that where there is a substantial accumulation of the fund it can be put to the reduction of debt and it does not remain in the fund as a surplus.
At any rate, this is really a serious matter of public accounting. Of course, it becomes very much more serious when we get such a small amount of information today. We really have nothing upon which to go. About 48 hours ago we were discussing the sum of £25 million and we were told nothing about that. Now we are introducing a Measure dealing with a complex insurance scheme to cover mercantile operations in time of war, and we have no more information than we had on the last occasion. There have been no estimates, although I agree that esti-


mates of losses are quite futile and confusing.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who usually is very helpful to the House, was a little perfunctory in this matter. No one would blame him for intervening as soon as possible. It would, I know, help many of my hon. Friends to continue the debate more fully informed than those of us who have had to take part in it up to now.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: If the House will give me leave to answer the main points which have been raised in what I think has been an interesting and good-tempered debate, may I say that I gather from hon. Gentlemen opposite——

Mr, Bing: If the hon. Gentleman is rising to seek the courtesy of the House to speak twice is he doing so to cut short the debate?

Mr. Braithwaite: I am doing so in the hope that my intervention will be helpful. It is not for me to conclude the debate. It is for me to answer a number of points which have been put already.
I gather from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite that while they are not opposing the Second Reading there are a number of strong objections to it. Indeed, a number of wounding attacks have been made on some of its provisions. I wonder if the hon. Gentlemen who made these speeches realise the risk they are running from their observations, because this is a Measure which Her Majesty's present advisers inherited. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) spoke of scraping the bottom of the pigeon-holes. That is not what took place, but, nevertheless, the first draft of this Measure is dated 4th December, 1951, and not even a Tory Government could work as quickly as that.
This Measure was contemplated by our predecessors. I think they were wise to do so on two counts. First, it is a valuable Bill to have on the Statute Book now, and secondly, like ourselves, the previous Government thought it wise wherever possible—and I hope there is common ground about this—to replace Defence Regulations by permanent legislation as opportunity arises, and that is

why we found these proposals awaiting us when we took office.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, a large number of Bills are in draft and are not introduced until the time is appropriate. The main onus of our remarks was that the urgency of this Measure was not clear. While we may have had this Bill in draft the fact that we did not introduce it shows we did not consider there was urgency about it.

Mr. Braithwaite: On the contrary, the reason was that the Labour Government were removed from office, and it remained for us to do it. At the moment, we are debarred from entering into agreements with foreign Governments for the insurance of their ships and they are anxious to enter into such agreements now. It seems a pity for that to be held up. The hon. Member for Devonport accused me of two qualities or faults— I am not sure which—with which I do not remember being charged before— brevity and taciturnity.

Mr. Mitchison: Did the hon. Gentleman say foreign Governments?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes. There are a number of foreign Governments anxious to come to arrangements about the insurance of their ships.
The hon. Member for Devonport pointed out that when the late Mr. Oliver Stanley introduced the 1939 Bill, as President of the Board of Trade, he spoke at far greater length than I did. He was, however, dealing with the commodity insurance scheme as well as insurance of ships and cargoes. As this present Measure does little more than re-enact what was done then, with some alterations, I did not think it was necessary to inflict a very long speech on the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) asked for a clearer definition of war risks. That will be considered between now and the Committee stage. It is some slight satisfaction for me as a layman to find that I was right, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was wrong, on that definition, when he intervened during my earlier Second Reading speech. Our present powers under existing legislation——

Mr. Hale: May I quote the actual document? Section 1 of the 1939 Act states:
… by reason of lack of insurance facilities, may, with the approval of the Treasury, enter into agreements with any persons—
I will only quote the material parts. I do not wish to waste the time of the House in any way—

"(a)for the re-insurance by the Board of any King's enemy risks against which a British ship is for the time being insured; and
(b) for the re-insurance by the Board of any King's enemy risks against which the cargo carried in a ship or aircraft is for the time being insured."
Then it goes on to say:
In relation to any period during which His Majesty is at war, the preceding provisions of this subsection shall have effect as if for any reference therein to King's enemy risks there were substituted a reference to war risks.
In other words. "King's enemy" in time of peace, and "war" in time of war.

Mr. Braithwaite: At the moment the Queen's enemy risks do not exist. I want to recapitulate this because we are not at war in the technical sense, but, of course, we are in a state of hostilities and this Bill would give us power to cover war risks and thus enable us to deal with the Korean situation. Reference was made in the debate to Clause 2 (1, b). It is true that this covers marine risk insurance. This is necessary because in war or hostilities ships frequently find themselves involved in special and quite unusual hazards. An example that one might give is that of convoys which proceeded to North Russia during the last war in circumstances of unusual danger, and a very heroic story it was.
To answer another point, losses were paid out of the insurance fund as soon as the loss was proved and the owner received no more than the amount stated in the policy. It is very desirable in war conditions to proceed by insurance, for this secures the service of the whole insurance machinery with its world-wide ramifications. This is most important when dealing with claims for damages as distinct from claims for total loss.
I should like to deal now very briefly with the very interesting speech which was made by my colleag ue in the representation of Bristol, the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). May I

say now, with the greatest good temper, that Clause 2 (3) to which he referred has been misunderstood by him almost completely? What it means is that the tender or barge into which goods are discharged, or from which goods are loaded, is not to be deemed to be the ship for the purpose of terminating the transit risk. In other words, there is a separate and additional premium to be paid during transit from ship to warehouse or from warehouse to ship. That is the reason for the wording of Clause 2 (3). A separate premium is necessary.

Mr. Benn: Does this separate premium relate to the cargo or to the tenders themselves? I read the text of the 1939 Act with great care. This point was raised because it was felt that there should be a provision which would prevent these barges being laid up. When I read Section 2 (3) it seemed that the same thing was being pursued now, and I am not clear whether the separate premium is for the cargo.

Mr. Braithwaite: It is to cover the cargo from the time it is discharged from the ship in which it has come from overseas until delivered into the warehouse.
The hon. Gentleman also wanted to know about publication of losses incurred. I am sure that he will realise that in time of war publication of such information is deferred until the conclusion of hostilities, it being not in the public interest to disclose what those losses are. He will recall that at the height of the Battle of the Atlantic our shipping losses were not disclosed at all. The reason was that the enemy might get hold of that information. It was left to the end of the war to publish them.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the money question can he tell us what amount of money is standing to the credit of the War Risks and Marine Insurance Fund? It is mentioned in the Bill: it has to be paid into the new fund, and that is what I call the ante.

Mr. Braithwaite: I was coming to that point a little later on. It was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West, and I am trying to take all these points in some kind of sequence. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman


will not think me discourteous if I do not answer it now.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East raised the matter of seamen's effects. These can be insured as goods, but he may recall that during the last war the Government had a scheme of compensation for loss of seamen's effects, without any payment by the seaman, and a similar scheme would doubtless be brought into operation in the event of serious hostilities now. That scheme worked extremely well and could be done again.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who is very well-informed on these matters, came back again to the question of Korea. It is true that at the moment the market is covering the insurance of ships, except those proceeding to Korea, for war risks. But it has the right to terminate that cover on giving 48 hours notice, and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that an extraordinary situation would arise unless the Government were in a position to step in and give the necessary cover in a situation of that kind.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West asked about the figure of £7,000 or £8,000, and wanted an explanation of that expenditure. It related to the work of winding up the business of the late war and the negotiation of new agreements with the British "clubs." The method by which the various shipping companies pool their information is known as the "club system".

Mr. Hale: Mutual club system.

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, mutual insurance to cover arrangements to be brought into operation in the event of a future war or hostilities. This involves a small expenditure.
I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman worked up a good deal of indignation about the concealment of

what has happened—how well shipowners had done and how badly the Government had fared. A little research would have given the information which was sought, because the accounts of the last war insurance scheme were all published as reports by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Those reports are available and can be studied by hon. Gentlemen. I am sure that they will not ask me to go into detail at this late hour. There are the accounts; there has been no concealment. They are available. We have had a somewhat lengthy and useful debate. There are a number of points which can await the Committee stage, and I hope the House will now give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Could the hon. Gentleman clear up the position about Korea? He has rather endeavoured to point out that the Bill is needed to extend the Regulations to Korea, but surely, under the existing Act, the Defence Regulations and this extension, it would be possible to apply re-insurance in the case of Korea if it was so desired. That is irrelevant to the Bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: The point was raised by other hon. Members. I do not think I can say for a third time what the Korea position is. As to the Defence Regulations, we take the view that legislation should now take their place.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepbura): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepbura) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Standing Commitee.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Butcher.]

12.20 a.m.

Dr. Horace King: It would be a waste of time to spend an Adjournment debate merely denouncing the Minister who is to reply, or, rather, the sinister figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer behind him, and talking about the reckless way in which the school building programme has been jettisoned and the education of many of our young children gravely imperilled.
The facts are notorious. In January, 1947, the school population was 4,881,000. In January, 1953, it will be 6,058,000, and in January, 1956, 6,445,000. The figures are from the Minister's own Report. Between 1947 and 1953, therefore, 1,250,000 extra school places are needed, and by January, 1956, 1,500,000 extra places. A complete post-war new school building programme of 1,750,000 places is needed merely to provide for the increased child population.
To meet that demand, the Labour Government's building programmes were steadily expanding and, in my opinion, would have barely coped with the problem that they set themselves. A Tory Minister has stopped the 1951–52 programme and has made of the fragments of the 1951–52 and 1952–53 programmes a new programme roughly half of that which was originally planned. This must lead to a serious shortage of school accommodation within the next two years, and I want to say a word or two about it.
Over the week-end, however, we have had an amazing contribution to political and educational theory from the Venerable Archdeacon of Bedford, who holds that if a child is physically developed at the age of 14 and does not want to stay at school he ought to be turned out. It is only fair to the Archdeacon to say that he means only working-class children and that he does not propose to turn out children from middle and upper-class schools according to their intellectual standards.
It is only fair to Britain to say that all the Socialists and most of the Tories have much more Christian views on the State's

responsibilities for the education of all its children, the dull ones as well as the bright ones, and that the Archdeacon himself would be much better employed in doing something to improve physical conditions in many of the old church schools, for which he and his ecclesiastical colleagues still hold responsibility-schools which, by their very cramped and old nature, make part of the problem and part of the crisis that we now face.
The whole of the occupants of the Government benches, when in Opposition, stood firm by the 1944 Act, were alarmed at the slow rate of building, were alarmed at the number of large classes, and continually prodded on the last Labour Minister of Education. For example, in July, 1948, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall), whom both sides of the House are delighted to hear has been knighted for his public services, especially to education, said:
To talk of 6,000 extra classrooms is a mere bagatelle; what we want is 50,000 classrooms in this country—today and not in five vears time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 1404.]
Speaking of Surrey schools—and both the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) are proud of Surrey's educational system, he told the House that in many cases, even in Surrey, it was only the paint that was holding up the schools. If Surrey's needs are great, those of many other local education authorities are even greater. Many local education authorities—perhaps all of them—will be faced with either refusing children places in 1953, or with housing them in classes of well over 50. There are too many classes of over 50 now.
I urge the Minister to lift her building ceiling a little, to sponsor, support and encourage emergency measures to cope with children demanding places in the next two or three years, and to begin to get down to the vital question of finding new solutions for the problem which will remain with the country not merely during the lifetime of this Government, but for the next 10 years at least. The problem is to provide new schools and schools fit for the children and the teachers to work in—and to provide them quickly. I have too little faith in statistics to believe that in the building programme the Minister has permitted under her cuts


to local authorities, mathematical finality has been reached, even inside the broad national figures or pattern which the Chancellor has laid down.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the strong case which local education authority after local education authority put up after the building axe fell—and let her remember that most of them were Tory education authorities—for the necessity of including at least the most urgent extra schools in their original programmes. Let her remember that the original programmes had already been pared and pruned to the minimum needs. But I am certain, on the other hand, that when the cuts were made, and when the overall capital investment programme for schools was arrived at, the shortage of steel was one of the factors that made the Minister cut the school building programme so drastically.
In passing, might I urge the Minister to see that local education authorities get —and get at the right time—the steel needed for the meagre school list that she has permitted and that there is no further hold up in this limited programme? I believe that we have to get away from steel if we are to get all the schools we need and get them swiftly. The Ministry's Working Party, reporting in 1948, said some exceedingly wise things, among them that it would be unwise to tie down the whole school building programme to one system of construction which depended on the regular supply of some particular material.
The second point was that time can be saved by having the work, or part of the work, done at the factory rather than on the building site. Thirdly, the long-term building programme necessary for our schools cannot be coped with by the traditional methods of construction in any reasonable time. Fourthly, pre-fabrication does not necessarily mean ugliness. All these maxims become of paramount importance as we face the crisis in school accommodation. Already some local authorities have followed and, indeed, anticipated, the Working Party's Report. Incidentally, the Report of the Ministry of Education for 1951 shows the photographs of four new schools—all four of non-traditional building. I have spoken before in the House of the

remarkable non-traditional building programme of Hertfordshire County Council.
At the same time, new methods of providing building strength have emerged. I have with me tonight a picture of a timber span 120 feet long designed for a bridge, and as advertised by the Timber Development Association. The use of timber in place of steel is something that, I believe, local authorities and the Minister will have to investigate. Let me say that I have no financial interest to declare about anything I say in this debate. Pre-stressed concrete containing a mere modicum of steel cuts down the amount of steel required for building to an almost negligible fraction.
I have, too, with me literature from a firm which provides prefabricated schools on a sectional basis, and which boasts that it makes them without steel; and while that is not literally true, it is almost true. There are several such firms already that have submitted plans, and their work has been approved by the Ministry.
Then there is the aluminium school of the Bristol Aeroplane Company which is already being erected for a number of local authorities. Two—at least two—of the firms which build sectional schools specialise at the same time in providing architects' plans and quantity specifications, which cuts down the time, especially when local authorities' architects' departments are overworked, and it avoids delay in that way.
Just across the water, in Waterloo Road, is a set of offices built at the time of the Festival of Britain. The walls are of concrete panels with plaster finish, and provide a swift way of building schools. This pleasant little modern building, still standing, which I saw day by day swiftly being erected as I made my way to Parliament just before the Festival of Britain, is a palace compared with a thousand of the worst primary schools of the villages of our land. Also, the application of some of these new methods of house building is yielding very real advances in the speeding up of the housing programme, but I believe that they have not been by any means used enough for school building.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to encourage the new and revolutionary methods of school building—methods


which the Ministry has already recommended patiently for the last two or three years to local authorities; and I believe he can do this very simply by adding schools, as I have asked him to do, to the programme of those local authorities whose needs are most desperate, but adding them on condition that they take up one of the various non-traditional types, using little or no steel, and able to be erected quickly—schools which can be built without making serious demands on the labour needed for traditional house building.
Let me illustrate the needs of two local education authorities I know intimately, having been a member of both—two authorities, neither of them Labour controlled, both gravely concerned about the children whose needs they have to meet in the next two years. There is Southampton, that had a programme of seven schools to be begun by March of this year. All work was postponed by this Government. Then the release came. One has so far actually been started. Three more are approved, but there has been delay in the final approval of those because the Minister has insisted on new modification of the plans which had already been approved.
But the remaining three of the seven schools have been struck off. In all, those three schools would have provided places for 1,600 junior and infant children. Two of them are on new housing estates, and the third is being built because we are rebuilding an area which was completely destroyed—quite literally, completely destroyed—by enemy action during the war.
It is no good telling the people of Southampton, or the local authority, to use huts, because the playgrounds in Southampton are already littered with huts. It is no good asking them to use church halls. Many of our churches were destroyed, or damaged, during the war, and we are using most of those which remain. If the Ministry would put back into the building programme at least one of the schools which has been cut out he would be rendering a great service to the children of Southampton.
Hampshire's programme has been slashed by a half. I am a member of the Hants County Council, and I know that the Minister has yielded to the local education authority's representations and put

one school back into the programme; but the position is still grave in a county which is receiving overspill population from the boroughs. The cuts means serious problems ahead for the towns of Fordingbridge, Petersfield, Gosport and Eastleigh. It must be remembered that before it was cut the building programme by no means grappled with all the problems which the county had to face, and left secondary education in makeshift buildings in three or four other towns.
The greatest county of all—London— will face insurmountable problems if the cuts remain. Already, nearly half of her children are in classes of 40 or more, and her school programme was cut this year by 11,000 places. A debate in another place revealed that in Glasgow, even now, the average child population per class is 39.5. Each extra school granted, if the Minister will give the first part of what I ask for tonight, can solve only part of the problem which many of these areas have to face. Hampshire wants to spend more than £100,000 on providing unit classroom accommodation to get its children into school in the next two years. The Minister has refused permission for more than half that amount to be spent.
There are various types of prefabricated class rooms—timber, aluminium, and one prototype which I have seen at Christ-church of a classroom with timber frame and walls of masonite. These temporary, or semi-permanent, classrooms can be put up on one site and when they have served their purpose there can be taken down and used elsewhere. I therefore urge the Minister to make financial provision, or to allow local authorities to make financial provision, for providing the extra classrooms by some of the more modern types of prefabricated structure which I have mentioned.
The Horsa huts had defects, but they saved our children when secondary education for all was introduced. Thousands of children are learning science for the first time in hut laboratories built during the last five years. I believe that we can only cope with the grave crisis which confronts this country during the next ten years if we make a bold and rapid expansion of school building. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some satisfaction on some of the points I have raised.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I want briefly to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) for urgent reconsideration of the school building programme. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying, to consider the particular problems of my constituency, which also has the same problems as the constituency of my hon. Friend, that is, the special problems of the blitzed areas.
In West Ham many of the schools were destroyed by the blitz. Some of the schools which survived are old and dilapidated structures which certainly do not provide the proper environment for the enlightenment of our children. In the case of these blitzed areas the Government's cuts have been a grave and, in the case of West Ham, a disastrous blow to the plans of a progressive local authority. I plead for reconsideration of the school building cuts in the case of those areas.

12.41 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): The hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) will not be surprised if I am not in a position to give him detailed answers about West Ham, about which I have had no particular notice. Nor can I answer in detail about Southampton and Hampshire, although the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) was kind enough to warn me that he would speak from his intimate knowledge of those areas. I did not think it was worth while getting out the detail, and I am glad I did not, because it was plain that whatever detail I got out would not be the right detail, and in any case one could not answer very quickly.
The peculiar difficulties, and the need for the right official consideration, of blitzed areas is fully understood, and I can assure the hon. Gentlemen that I will draw the attention of the persons principally concerned to Southampton and West Ham, although I should be misleading the House if I said I thought it would not be found that all is being done that could be done for those two districts. I will have that inquired into very carefully.
Referring to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for the Southampton, Test

I thought it would be possible to discuss the matter without any partisanship. I have not read what was alleged to have been uttered by the Archdeacon. I do not think the continued casting of stones at the inadequacy of the buildings of some church schools is very helpful or a very generous return for the fact that, after all, it was the church school that got public education in this country at all.
But the part of his speech which seemed to me to deserve attention in the very short time I have—I do not mean that all his speech does not deserve attention—was the argument for what are called non-traditional methods, and perhaps I may usefully employ the five or six minutes left to me by saying something about that. Before I do so, I would say that he is in the mistake which many hon. Members will not shake themselves out of—that of talking continually as if the shortage of buildings were the decisive factor in the excessive largeness of classes. That is not the fact. So far as we can tell at present, or can guess about any immediate future, it is shortage of teachers, not shortage of buildings, which causes the excessive size of classes.
Incidentally, about the Tories coming in and jettisoning the whole school programme and all that, it has been said over and over again in the House and elsewhere that the last Government estimated that 1.15 million places were needed by the end of 1953 and it is still the belief of our technical advisers that, at the present rate of building, on present progress, that is the number that will be provided by then. I make bold to say that nobody who has been in office and heard the information which is then available would ever have supposed, or could now suppose, that a greater share of national resources could have been given to school building than has been given.
Let me come to this point about non-traditional methods. I join with the hon. Member in congratulating Hertfordshire —and no doubt there have been other counties—but it is fair to say that the Ministry itself has done a great deal in this matter. This is not by way of criticising L.E.As., but they have done more than any L.E.A. and more than all the L.E.As. put together.
All the methods of building without steel or with very little steel which he has suggested have, in fact, been urged upon L.E.As. by the Ministry. The Ministry started in 1949—and there is no party point about this, for in so far as credit goes to anyone it goes to the Socialist Government—an experiment in administration by bringing together in a single branch the educational expert, the administrative officer, the architect and the quantity surveyor so that the problem of building schools in ways not hitherto traditional should be looked at by all the professions concerned.
The results of that in reducing costs and in quickening building have been very great and are increasing. They are not limited by any want of zeal on the part of the Minister or the Ministry. They are limited wholly and solely by want of productive capacity in the industry. What the Ministry all along has done about it is both to design and help others to design to make the components, and so on, so that productive capacity should have its optimum effect. It has done and is still doing all that can be done to increase productive capacity. They are doing all these things with all the methods mentioned by the hon. Member, and in several places.
There is no doubt at all that the Ministry has done a very great deal in these respects—so much so, in fact, that the actual cost as compared with 1949 in terms of pounds sterling has been reduced by 25 per cent. If you look at the fall in the value of the £ in the intervening period, the reduction in the amount of labour and materials needed has been over 40 per cent. The proportion of non-traditional building which was 12 per cent. then is now 25 per cent.
and it is hoped in a couple of years to get it up to something like 50 per cent.
Therefore, it is not really necessary to do as the hon. Member suggested—and throw over what has been the permanent policy of all Governments of leaving L.E.As. to choose their own types of architecture and building—by saying to them, "The amount of building you shall get will be limited according to the proportion you do of non-traditional building." That was nevertheless, I think, the hon. Member's most positive suggestion. It is not necessary to do that because already non-traditional building is being used to the maximum of capacity. That capacity is being increased and there is no doubt that as fast as it can be increased it will be used. Really, therefore, the hon. Member is hitting at an open door and he is running his head against a brick wall that is not there.
It has been wholly the advice and suggestions of the Ministry that has resulted in bringing within the range of possibility the use of aluminium buildings for two and three stories. That will be another great step along the path in which the hon. Member is interested. I am sorry if my reply has been rushed. I hope I got those percentages right just now, because in the hurry to get them out I did not use my notes properly. I think that they were accurate.
I do not think that in an Adjournment debate, and in 10 minutes, it would be possible to give the hon. Gentleman a fuller answer than that I have given.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.